Condos went from 1,106 to 1,423. That's a big increase. I guess height will change. No?
View attachment 513533

The building will end up being 10% wider, which can be seen in the latest set of AIC docs. Who knew the act of cutting 10 stories off the original may have lead to this building being so chonk.

1697519119890.png
 
Last edited:
Here is a link to C of A files from which the current notice originates:


If you follow the link, carefully note the dates as there are multiple versions of the assorted files across different dates.

Currently, the variation in the latest notices is set to go before C of A on Nov 8th, 2023.

****

Of note are the Letters of Objection filed in September to current proposal.

TMU up first:

1697549297331.png


They go into a great deal more detail thereafter.

TMU then proposes 'solutions' which would allow it withdraw its objection:

1697549388255.png


The BIA also filed a letter; but it wasn't a clear objection or support, but rather a request that they get to meet w/the developer to review the proposal.

The Councillor also chimed in, in Sept:

1697549547650.png


****


The Amended Planning Rationale summarizes the proposed changes:

1697549671048.png

****

So the driver here is that TMU is not exercising their option for the podium space.

As institutional space there was greater floor height than for a residential floor.

The proposal converts 4 institutional floors to 6 residential floors within the podium.

This means increasing the podium height, which is offset by dropping a 'penthouse' (tower) floor.

****

On review, I would deny the application.

First and foremost the C of A application is wrongly before the C of A, the nature of the change is not 'minor' and represents a significant alteration to the proposal. A new Planning Application is required.

Second, the proposal would be better served by dropping 2 of the proposed residential floors from the podium and adding them to the tower instead, assuming the entirety of the space is converted to residential.

In the absence of TMU as a client in the podium, I don't see a good rationale for that space as office space in the current market, nor do I see 4 floors of retail moving in. The area is saturated for grocery and big box.
 
Last edited:
Looks like we're getting more topside slant for the buck instead of any real height increase here.
 
Well I'm just glad they did the right thing and added the two to three new elevators to cover the additional units.

*Hold up, I'm getting something from control*: What's that? No new elevators? 317 new units and no new elevators? And they were deficient by 2 to start with?

If anyone buys in this indefensible future slum, that is entirely on your dumb ass.
 
It'll be like Aura with investor owned student rentals. Why are some still labouring under the misapprehension that investors give a shit?
 
For sure a future student tower of chaos.
BUT from a never plan to set foot inside of it POV, I like how it looks like a blade. It will definitely add some contrast of form to the skyline.
 
Problem is, most people looking wouldn't know to think about elevator ratios sadly. They need to be informed as consumers somehow.
Generally speaking, friends shouldnt let friends buy or rent in any building built by Concord period. That's a good starting point for any consumer.

Then as another general rule of thumb; unless one is a student, dont rent or buy in any build after ~2014 that's located in the vicinity of TMU as those as all generally cheap investor box garbage builds.

As for this development, it's going to be certified gutter trash and there's no question about it.
 

Back
Top