[ProjectEnd]

People here talk about how the original proposal was never going to be built, meanwhile, 45 Broad Street in New York is similar, but being built

What was it about the earlier design that made it unlikely to be built?

That's a great point. I have a unit here, can I sell it to you?

 

[T.E.C.II]

45 Broad Street is not being built. it is on hold from like 3 years and there were rumors that there is a new design, under 300m but no progress on that..

Not only that, it turns out the design was drastically changed.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

That's a great point. I have a unit here, can I sell it to you?

...I mean, it looks pretty non-fungible.

 

[UrbanAffair]

Does anyone have a final GFA on this one? (Copy of by-law etc.?)

I know the density is around 43x, which is impressive, but not as impressive (and unrealistic?) as the 60x being sought at 17-19 Bloor or what was sought for 1200 Bay.)

I have 1,258,463 sq ft as the final GFA, but would love a copy of the by-law if it has been created.

 

[Northern Light]

This one returns to life in the form of a C of A application.

Exactly zero points are awarded if you guessed why. LOL

The proponents are seeking to remove the required office space and sub in 127 residential units.

They are also seeking relief from the required parking, as this building was approved prior to the abolition of parking minimums.

@Paclo

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

As this building is within an MTSA (3 of them actually), and is seeking to reduce office space and add residential, @HousingNowTO may wish to see there's an affordable housing gain to be had.

So far as I can discern the one clear give here is that the new units would inordinately be larger 2 + 3 bdrms on levels 3-6 of the proposal, but I don't see any other inducements. I think 2 affordable units on each of floors 3-6 would be entirely reasonable.....

******

There are a couple of minor changes in massing:

New (proposed) is on the right, it removes the little notch in the circle on the right.

Additionally there is a small new setback at the 10th floor to create a further 129m2 of outdoor amenity space.

Description of changes from the Planning Addendum:

The only render on offer is low quality and black and white, but I will bring it forward none the less:

The white lines are an irritation, but I blew this up to 160%, as otherwise you wouldn't make out much detail.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

The white lines are an irritation, but I blew this up to 160%, as otherwise you wouldn't make out much detail.

Goodness, developers are still faxing their proposals to City officials?

 

[Paclo]

The database has been updated to reflect the minor variance. However the architectural plans attached in the MV file in the AIC do not reflect the minor variance -- dated Aug '23, they still include office space.

The only render on offer is low quality and black and white, but I will bring it forward none the less:

View attachment 584231

The white lines are an irritation, but I blew this up to 160%, as otherwise you wouldn't make out much detail.

This is just a black & white version of the previous rendering:

Once the correct plans are submitted on the file, new renderings will be updated if exterior massing has changed.

 

[xy3]

I really hope that podium dosen't get VE'd/squared off

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I really hope that podium isnt VE'd/squared off

Right now...

New (proposed) is on the right, it removes the little notch in the circle on the right.

Additionally there is a small new setback at the 10th floor to create a further 129m2 of outdoor amenity space.

...if that's it, then it's unlikely to look that different from the current renders. And presuming they will build what is reflective of those renders.