AlexCorey
New Member
The facade looks similar to what Herzog de Meuron did in Paris at their Rue de Suisse residential development - albeit aA is applying it to a tower.
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
urbandreamer
recession proof
My guess: One of JDV/Thompson Hotels new "designer" hotel brand--either Commune or another as yet to be launched brand.
http://www.idesigntimes.com/articles/1748/20120604/commune-hotels-set-to-launch-in-new-york-city.htm
http://www.idesigntimes.com/articles/1748/20120604/commune-hotels-set-to-launch-in-new-york-city.htm
urbandreamer
recession proof
I believe a name has been chosen for this development, Feb 2013 launch?
The perforated aluminium balcony shutter design really reminds me of this BP Architectures' M9-C building in Paris.
The perforated aluminium balcony shutter design really reminds me of this BP Architectures' M9-C building in Paris.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Has Freed ever developed a building that didn't go to the OMB? (just guessing where this may end up)
From: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE22.5
This application proposes to construct a new 28-storey (104-metre, including an 8-metre mechanical penthouse), mixed use (hotel and residential) building and a 6-storey building at the rear (adjacent to a private lane) and a 2 and 3-storey portion connecting the two buildings at 89 Avenue Road. The application proposes a site-specific By-law which permits a maximum of 85 residential units and the flexibility to provide up to 5,530 square metres of non-residential gross floor area (hotel). A 4-level underground garage is also proposed comprised of 54 parking spaces. In addition, 15 parking spaces are located off-site at 99 Avenue Road.
This application is not appropriate for the site. The overall proposal, including the proposed height and massing, does not conform to the Official Plan; is inconsistent with Council-approved guidelines; and represents an overdevelopment of the site. Therefore, this report reviews and recommends refusal of the application to amend the Zoning By-law.
From: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE22.5
This application proposes to construct a new 28-storey (104-metre, including an 8-metre mechanical penthouse), mixed use (hotel and residential) building and a 6-storey building at the rear (adjacent to a private lane) and a 2 and 3-storey portion connecting the two buildings at 89 Avenue Road. The application proposes a site-specific By-law which permits a maximum of 85 residential units and the flexibility to provide up to 5,530 square metres of non-residential gross floor area (hotel). A 4-level underground garage is also proposed comprised of 54 parking spaces. In addition, 15 parking spaces are located off-site at 99 Avenue Road.
This application is not appropriate for the site. The overall proposal, including the proposed height and massing, does not conform to the Official Plan; is inconsistent with Council-approved guidelines; and represents an overdevelopment of the site. Therefore, this report reviews and recommends refusal of the application to amend the Zoning By-law.
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
Recommended refusal for this and Massey. Toronto city planning is on a roll!
fedplanner
Active Member
What ward is this one in?
adma
Superstar
Far edge of Wong-Tam's.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Sorry to say, she is one of the most anti-development councilors of the pile
Last edited:
The City Councillors' role in the refusal reports is being over-emphasized on UrbanToronto today.
The refusals come from building proposals not fitting within the zoning bylaw requirements in their particular areas, often grossly, and you can read the reasons why in the report.
Or I suppose you can take the easy route and just blindly bad-mouth the Councillor without knowing a thing about it all.
42
The refusals come from building proposals not fitting within the zoning bylaw requirements in their particular areas, often grossly, and you can read the reasons why in the report.
Or I suppose you can take the easy route and just blindly bad-mouth the Councillor without knowing a thing about it all.
42
gristle
Senior Member
Yes.
fedplanner
Active Member
Planners evaluate building proposals against zoning bylaw requirements written circa 1986 representing a different era of thinking where the car was king. Councilors sometime take the initiative to work with developers and negotiate section 37 benefits for developments that would otherwise result in refusal by the planning department.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
You would have to be blind, if you think a councilor does not have the influence of swaying the popularity of a project in his/her ward.....ever read a Gordon Perks news letter
fedplanner
Active Member
Exactly. All the development that happened under Kyle Rae's watch was not a fluke.
Additionally, didn't a certain North Toronto city councilor get voted out of office for brokering a deal with Minto to build the Minto Midtown skyscrapers. A development proposal that was initially rejected by the planning department. You guys would not believe me if I told you the story, but maybe someone else that knows it will step forward and speak.
Last edited:
Yes, but there are degrees to everything.
If a developer wants a little more than what the local zoning allows, Councillors can be more accommodating in trying to negotiate for S37, etc. If the developer wants a lot more and is not willing to reduce their expectations, then negotiations either fail or never happen at all. Go to far beyond the local zoning and the Councillor can't help, and the Panning Department is pretty much bound to refuse an application: rules is rules is rules, and they can only bend so far.
42
See my above response. It's all about the degree to which a developer's requests exceed the local zoning.
Oh, and by the way, I said over-emphasize in my first response to you. Here's what that means, as you obviously have no idea: it means that Councillors still have a role, but not as over-arching a one as you are stating.
42