We're all used to parking lots and 3-storey buildings getting replaced with towers in Toronto - but I still find it extraordinary to see a 14-storey building knocked down for a 62 storey one... we'll likely see more of this in the coming years.
 
SPA moving along with a resubmission in December. Summary of changes below:
  • Total height increased slightly from 203.35 to 203.65m
  • Total residential units decreased from 751 to 717 (635 condo units, 82 rental replacement)
  • Total vehicular parking decreased from 106 to 88
Updated rendering:
PLN - Architectural Plans - Architecture_88 Isabella-2.jpg
 
From the Cover Letter for the above...............

1708626884541.png


Excuse me? You want to retain ownership of the land, which is unusable as park space, but count it towards your parkland contribution? Uh uh.........

Revised Site Plan:

1708627082506.png


There is nothing there that should count as a park.............
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
From the Cover Letter for the above...............

View attachment 542549

Excuse me? You want to do retain ownership of the land, which is unusable as park space, but count it towards your parkland contribution? Uh uh.........

Revised Site Plan:

View attachment 542552

There is nothing there that should count as a park.............
Click to expand...
The proponent must've had some strong drinks while they were putting that into their reports.
 
Northern Light said:
From the Cover Letter for the above...............

View attachment 542549

Excuse me? You want to retain ownership of the land, which is unusable as park space, but count it towards your parkland contribution? Uh uh.........

Revised Site Plan:

View attachment 542552

There is nothing there that should count as a park.............
Click to expand...

They must be trying to capitalize on Bill 23 since POPs are now eligible for parkland credits. City has been pushing applicants to rename POPs to ELAs (Enhanced Landscape Areas) to get around this.
 
The rental replacement policies were necessary in the 1990s and 2000s when no new private rentals were being built and there was pressure to convert to condos. Today it may a hindrance for replacing a low rise 30 unit with a high rise with 120 units., in particular, the rental supplement program from demoevictions. There certainly needs to be oversight with demoevictions. Renters shouldn't have it hanging over their heads for years. It shouldn't come into play until a developer is serious enough to start construction with a tentative date. I don't see that with Tenblock and 25 St Mary and the half dozen other major redevelopment plans. Renting is not owning. That line seems to be quite blurred with the guy in the article concerned that the supplement offered from the demoeviction will not cover the full balance between what he pays and what the market rate is.

This probably also contributes to these awkward tower in park infill situations in which the original tower in a less than ideal location is full retained
 
1Ć0 said:
They must be trying to capitalize on Bill 23 since POPs are now eligible for parkland credits. City has been pushing applicants to rename POPs to ELAs (Enhanced Landscape Areas) to get around this.
Click to expand...

The original application had parkland consolidated on the south east I think. Then the City broke it up so they are probably giving the City the middle finger.
 
SonyPayStation said:
The original application had parkland consolidated on the south east I think. Then the City broke it up so they are probably giving the City the middle finger.
Click to expand...

They're trying to avoid paying cash-in-lieu, or an offsite parkland acquisition. And they should not be able to get out of either.

The proposed onsite dedication was not to be taken seriously, and neither is the proponent's request to count this space as parkland.
 
Northern Light said:
They're trying to avoid paying cash-in-lieu, or an offsite parkland acquisition. And they should not be able to get out of either.

The proposed onsite dedication was not to be taken seriously, and neither is the proponent's request to count this space as parkland.
Click to expand...
Of course they are trying to avoid cash in lieu.
 
Paclo said:
SPA resubmission with material changes and minor massing changes, along with a reduction in total vehicular parking from 88 to 81.

Updated renderings:
View attachment 565817View attachment 565818
Click to expand...

I don't like the podium expression at-grade. The lobby entrance off to one side for no obvious reason, the landscape and the asymmetry more broadly do not read well to me.

Also, they took the colour out.
 
I don't dislike either version. If the newer version were built with those details, I would be happy, but I imagine it will go all shitty flute on us pretty quickly from here.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top