[UtakataNoAnnex]

Oh..so this is another clickbait proposa...I mean, "zoning exercise". /sigh

 

[AlbertC]

Oh..so this is another clickbait proposa...I mean, "zoning exercise". /sigh

They keep proposing and we keep clicking.

 

[ProjectEnd]

C'mon, if you don't know what KingSett's business plan is by now, that's kind of on you...

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

So that we're clear then, when it comes to KingSett... >.<

 

[ProjectEnd]

Again, in the most polite way possible: if you're getting very attached to the team or the details on a KS rezoning application, you're only doing so at your own peril...

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

To be fair, they have been umming and ahhing of putting something here for awhile now...so it's reasonably easy to presume when new news is being dropped here, that they're progressing on with the negotiations to build. So it gets overlooked that they may have no intentions to do anything here, for right or wrong...

...in the meantime, somebodies are likely getting paid well for producing nothing burgers. /sigh

 

[artyboy123]

The project database has been updated. The height changed from 255.25m & 246.40m to 246.91m & 255.76m. The total unit count changed from 1611 units to 1791 units. Finally, the total parking space count was reduced from 209 parking to 4 parking.

Info are taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning

 

[Northern Light]

Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of TEYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-239621.pdf

Interesting outcome on parkspace here.

The City gets a more or less 100% over dedication which Kingsett will be allowed to use as a credit against one or more of its other sites downtown.

 

[Koops65]

Not sure why the summary says otherwise, but the heights have remained the same, as per the architectural plans:

Tallest is still 255.8 metres.

 

[Koops65]

 

[Northern Light]

Of all the odd things, at this juncture, Unifor has registered to lobby on this one.............

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...er..not suggesting this is a bad thing here...but is it a usual practice for a trades union to coax a developer to build something? And assuming this is what Unifor is doing.

 

[Paclo]

This was approved at Council's November meeting, and has since had a technical resubmission regarding Engineering & Construction Services, and a consent to sever the lot into the respective parcels shown below:

Massing perspectives from the recommendation report:

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...a lot of maneuvering for a deep fake proposal. (Unless, they're planning on actually building this of coarse.)

 

[dougtoronto]

...a lot of maneuvering for a deep fake proposal. (Unless, they're planning on actually building this of coarse.)

I would imagine they could be making it easier to pass it on to another developer in this current market if it's two lots instead of one?