This one is tentatively headed to the OLT in November.

It is the subject of a Request for Direction Report at next week's Council Meeting.

Everything is currently confidential, but the style leads to me to believe that a settlement offer is on the table.


Let me take a wild guess...

Confidential Attachment 1:
"As requested by planning staff, the primary facade is no longer angled and is situated parallel to the street.

Unfortunately this site revision has created shadowing issues and is unacceptable in its present form
."
 
Let me take a wild guess...

Confidential Attachment 1:
"As requested by planning staff, the primary facade is no longer angled and is situated parallel to the street.

Unfortunately this site revision has created shadowing issues and is unacceptable in its present form
."

Let us hope for something better..........we shall see soon.
 
If they Get approval in November when would you expect to see them come in and start demolishing?

* assuming an approval *

Too many variables to say. I don't know if Kingsett would keep this in-house or flip it out as they so often do.

That alone could impact a timeline enormously.

But any which way, Kingsett is rarely mistaken for CentreCourt......and no permits have been applied for yet; which means it'll be awhile.
 
I am obviously much more interested in what is approved, than when a start date might be.

P.S. I was frankly scared to click on the thread bump (to see my reverse-psychology post above had failed ;-).
 
Let me take a wild guess...

Confidential Attachment 1:
"As requested by planning staff, the primary facade is no longer angled and is situated parallel to the street.

Sadly...........Ding Ding.......... @3Dementia gets the prize. LOL

Unfortunately this site revision has created shadowing issues and is unacceptable in its present form."

But not for this one.........we are getting just one big rectilinear building parallel to Yonge.

Details below the previously confidential report links:


* note, the reports indicate that at the time of the offer, the new architecture wasn't not yet finalized, so no pretty renders and no unit counts.

From the above:

1659793992845.png


@HousingNowTO will take an interest in this next bit, affordable housing via the S. 37 agreement:

1659794080101.png

1659794112711.png

1659794144388.png



Additional Items:

$50,000 for a Bikeshare station
A bumpout at Breadalbane and Yonge
1 bikeshare membership per unit
1 carshare membership per unit

Very preliminary and limited Arch. Plans (elevation drawings and Site Plan)


From the above:

1659794390293.png



1659794448692.png
 
Suffice to say I'm more than unsettled by this Settlement... so glad they also nixed the little podium cantilever, likely saving the city from imminent ruin.

If the gorgeous vertical colour, and horizontal banding around each set of 2 floors, has also disappeared... I'll assume a resubmission from TF is in the works.

Sometimes this joint is just painful to watch.
 
Ugh, planning has to ruin friggen everything.

A bit too much; but yes, their desire to check-boxes often gets in the way of innovative and/or quality design.

The angled building here reduced shadow impacts on the park and made for an interesting building form

Agreed.

… now this is just some basic condo building again.

Maybe, (all too likely); but I think we need to see the final re-iteration from BDPQ to pass judgement here.
 
Can someone actually explain to me the rationale behind this?

Like why does everything have to contribute to the streetwall, I cannot understand the underlying reasons for that requirement in the first place.
 
Planning by nature tends to be about policy and strictly adhering to said policy, than the nuances of design. So something that should operate as an urbanistic guideline becomes a piece of policy that is wielded ruthlessly instead of being applied within the spirit of the law or on a block-wide basis.

The fact that they wanted this tower rotated to orthogonal is mind-boggling to me. Absolute stupidity.
 

Back
Top