300 BLOOR ST W
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District

►View All Properties

Zoning By-law Amendment Application to permit the redevelopment of the site for a 38-storey mixed-use building containing office, retail/café, worship and community, and residential uses (259 dwelling units). The majority of the existing church and the entirety of Pidgeon House would be retained.

Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---

Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 17 279303 STE 20 OZ Dec 27, 2017 Under Review
 
u7D9EV7.jpg
 
Lenser said:
Agreed. A sleek elegance to it. Simple yet strong.
Curious, though, about seeing what the podium and street level experience will be about.
Click to expand...

Excellent, I think, if it winds up being built as currently proposed (a huge "if" given the scale of community opposition to its current form); the public corridor (as rendered) is very reminiscent of KPMB's excellent work at Koerner Hall. And moving the entrance to the church (and lowering it to grade) should help as well.
 
Among many being asked, some really good and interesting questions at the OMB (hearing scheduled March 25, 2019):


"11. Do the height and density restrictions of OPA 365 inappropriately limit height and density on lands located on, or adjacent to, a transit station servicing 3 rapid transit lines?

12. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies and/or a tower site on Map 3 where such development site requires a land assembly and for which no application has been filed?

13. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies or a tower site on Map 3:
(a) in the absence of complete planning, transportation and servicing analysis that justifies those development sites for such high-density development?
(b) where policies in OPA 365 assume such combined sites will have access to, and use of, other neighbouring private lands, including private driveways and laneways?
(c) where one development site is favoured to the detriment of another without the justification provided by fulsome planning, transportation and servicing analysis and, in particular, addresses conformity with other policies of OPA 365? "

from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2018/2018canlii5642/2018canlii5642.html#TOpoli

Cross posted: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...uilding-group-kirkor-architects.21173/page-12
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-26_19-18-46.png
    upload_2018-6-26_19-18-46.png
    205.2 KB · Views: 1,465
  • upload_2018-6-26_19-20-1.png
    upload_2018-6-26_19-20-1.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 1,321
  • upload_2018-6-26_19-22-16.png
    upload_2018-6-26_19-22-16.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 1,285
  • upload_2018-6-26_19-23-36.png
    upload_2018-6-26_19-23-36.png
    970.9 KB · Views: 1,234
It was a version of Option A that went before the Design Review Panel earlier this month, and so the database file has been updated to reflect its stats, (down to 28 storeys, not 27), and we have a front page story up here.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top