They've acquired a few more properties to the east and plan to extend the building along Adelaide (now encompassing 426 to 444 Adelaide St W.). There is no change in height.

The Committee of Adjustments hearing is set for February 22 at 1:30 PM.
 
New rendering shows the building has been extended.

http://thebrantpark.com/flash.php

scaled.php
 
Last edited:
I like that exoskeletal frame. Victory Condos was supposed to look like this before it was watered down.

It also resembles the Tower Hill West apartments at St Clair & Spadina.
 
Last edited:
I like the design, but I wish it didn't extend so deep into the block. From a street life perspective, the best buildings tend to have narrow, rather than block-spanning facades.
 
The Committee of Adjustments rejected this proposal. The opinion was that there were too many requested variances. The developer will now be appealing to the OMB.
 
The new version of Brant Park is bordering on relentless.

But what's going on with the OMB? Is it going to be dissolved? And if so, when? The OMB is one of the most divisive and pivotal topics effecting the the built future of Toronto, I'm surprised it isn't front page news on UT every day.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Same as yours on dismantling it
Click to expand...

Which is?

The OMB would be replaced by a Toronto-based appeals board that would likely be more respectful of the city plan and its intent. It could make zoning exceptions without the repercussion of undermining an entire secondary plan - which is the situation with the OMB. Your support for the OMB is largely based on an overwhelming personal desire for supertall towers at the expense of good city planning, and an unfounded fear that nothing tall would be allowed to go up.

Getting back to the subject of this thread, as noted, it was not the building, the height or its design that were rejected by the C of A, but the large number of requested variances included in its application. The Committee viewed these requests collectively as no longer being "minor" in nature, and suggested the applicants go for rezoning. The applicants have opted for the OMB instead.
 
gristle said:
Which is?

. Your support for the OMB is largely based on an overwhelming personal desire for supertall towers at the expense of good city planning, and an unfounded fear that nothing tall would be allowed to go up.
Click to expand...

Ahh come on... get over this fear of yours, that supertalls (which we dont have yet) are a product of bad planning
And no, i dont fear that without the OMB there would be no more tall towers going up, because in this city of skyscrapers "Money talks and Bullshit walks."
 
Automation Gallery said:
Ahh come on... get over this fear of yours, that supertalls (which we dont have yet) are a product of bad planning
And no, i dont fear that without the OMB there would be no more tall towers going up, because in this city of skyscrapers "Money talks and Bullshit walks."
Click to expand...

I don't have a fear of tall buildings. You can find my support for a number of such proposals throughout this forum, so once again you are wrong. That being said, as you have not addressed what I have stated earlier, so I conclude that my summation for your continued support of the OMB is correct. Your worries revolve solely around height.

By the way, since you were neither at the community meeting nor at the C of A hearing, you should be made aware that the community has a generally positive view of this project. The architect addressed a number of concerns quite skillfully and indicated that he took his cues from the surrounding warehouse buildings. The height comes in below most proposals in the area, and it does not present a significant shadow on the park. The proposal offers a significant number of three bedroom units, has one car share on site, secured bicycle rooms, and 120 parking spaces in an automated garage. They have even widened the lane way between Adelaide and Camden off Portland to accommodate the remaining businesses on Camden Street. Much of this stuff was presented at the community meeting where Vaughan noted approval for the efforts of the architect and developer in addressing such concerns.
 
This morning I noticed that the artist rendering banner was removed which makes sense. However, the temporary For Lease banner on the smaller building was gone as well - hmm.
 
neubilder said:
What is your interest in defending the OMB?
Click to expand...
Pro-development, no matter the cost.

Keep you're liberral hands off are wallet's!!! :rolleyes::cool:

gristle said:
By the way, since you were neither at the community meeting nor at the C of A hearing, you should be made aware that the community has a generally positive view of this project. The architect addressed a number of concerns quite skillfully and indicated that he took his cues from the surrounding warehouse buildings. The height comes in below most proposals in the area, and it does not present a significant shadow on the park. The proposal offers a significant number of three bedroom units, has one car share on site, secured bicycle rooms, and 120 parking spaces in an automated garage. They have even widened the lane way between Adelaide and Camden off Portland to accommodate the remaining businesses on Camden Street. Much of this stuff was presented at the community meeting where Vaughan noted approval for the efforts of the architect and developer in addressing such concerns.
Click to expand...
See all this stuff about building neighbourhoods in an intelligent manner, thoughtfully researching precedent and context and addressing community concerns? This is the bullshit he's talking about. It's little more than bureaucracy standing in the way of private enterprise. Something something taxpayers.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top