The thread title for this project has just changed, slightly, as it appears that new renderings highlight 383 as the address of choice for this building. The dataBase file linked at the top of the page has a number of new renderings added, and there's a new front page story too, outlining what we have learned from the supporting documentation submitted to the City for an Official Plan Amendment to allow this building.

The City has 180 days to respond to OPA applications, not just the 120 they're given to respond to zoning bylaw amendments.

Have fun!

42
 
Can't wait to hear what the DRC will have to say about this project--if it makes it that far with this current iteration.
 
interchange42 said:
The thread title for this project has just changed, slightly, as it appears that new renderings highlight 383 as the address of choice for this building. The dataBase file linked at the top of the page has a number of new renderings added, and there's a new front page story too, outlining what we have learned from the supporting documentation submitted to the City for an Official Plan Amendment to allow this building.

The City has 180 days to respond to OPA applications, not just the 120 they're given to respond to zoning bylaw amendments.

Have fun!

42
Click to expand...
As this is a resubmission I believe that 180 days has long expired.
 
As this is interesting, so from the new front page article I gather aA will be taking credit for a unique and beautiful design that they have no capability of ever designing?

aA should just be banished from this city; to call any of their work "architecture" is laughable.
 
Amare said:
As this is interesting, so from the new front page article I gather aA will be taking credit for a unique and beautiful design that they have no capability of ever designing?

aA should just be banished from this city; to call any of their work "architecture" is laughable.
Click to expand...

aA is the architect of record. KPF is the design architect.
 
Amare said:
As this is interesting, so from the new front page article I gather aA will be taking credit for a unique and beautiful design that they have no capability of ever designing?

aA should just be banished from this city; to call any of their work "architecture" is laughable.
Click to expand...

Boy, what a great post @Amare. Really using that noggin!
 
Are people blind? Do they only see basic shapes? This KPF design has about as much uniqueness to a dozen or more other KPF designs as aA does with their go to design. The only difference is one does boxy and other does not so boxy. We should be happy a top local firm is on the job instead of just another top producing firm. Maybe this won't turn out as disappointing as the KPF and Page and Steele collaborations.

Only curtain wall will do here as there aren't any balconies to hide the cheap window wall. Yep, wrap around balconies have been good to Toronto or, the lesser of two evils.
 
Curtain wall, as mentioned in the front page article, is what's in store here.

42
 
Benito said:
I love the idea that there will be terraces behind the curtain wall for some of the suites high up. The glass will protect the terraces from the high winds up there and make them quite useable.
Click to expand...

Sounds similar to the setup atop the Shangri-la, which you can see at this Toronto Life article.

tolife.jpg

image from article linked above.
 

Attachments

  • tolife.jpg
    tolife.jpg
    89.2 KB · Views: 407
interchange42 said:
The submission in 2015 was just for rezoning, not for an OPA.

42
Click to expand...

I don't believe so. According to the planning rationale:

Following initial circulation and the community consultation meeting, at the request of City
Planning, Kingsett also filed an amendment to the Toronto Official Plan (an “OPA”) on
September 17, 2015
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, this is a second submission addressing initial staff comments from the original Kingsett submission. According to the planning rationale, this submission was made after consulting city staff on issues with the original application. The property just happens to have a new owner.
 
A couple of interesting notes I saw in the Planning Justification:

Cresford continues to own a separate property (357A & 357 ½ Yonge Street) to the south
between the proposed mixed-use building base and the Ryerson Student Learning Centre.
Click to expand...
These are the Cash Money and Play De Record stores directly to the south of Zanzibar.

They are also taking advantage of the previous submission to be grandfathered past OP regulations that have been put in place since.
In November 2016, City Council adopted an Official Plan Amendment (OPA 352) introducing a
new Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP 517) and two Zoning Amendments to By-laws 438-86
and 569-2013 respectively, providing new policies and zoning regulations to guide and evaluate
tall buildings in Downtown.
Policies B) i) and ii) set out the general intent of the new tall building OPA. Policy B) i) states
that tall building development that occurs in the Downtown will provide setbacks from the lot
lines to the tower portion of the building so that individual tall buildings on a site and the
cumulative effect of multiple tall buildings within a block contribute to building strong healthy
communities by fitting in with the existing and/or planned context. Policy B) ii) states that the
Zoning By-law will contain minimum numerical standards for tower setbacks from property
lines and separation distances between towers in the area governed by the SASP. The SASP
states that Zoning amendments and/or Minor Variances may be considered providing that
adequate space between towers within the block will achieve a number of development criteria
(a-g).
In our opinion, this revised tall building proposal by Cresford to a Rezoning application filed
over 18 months ago (April 2015) should be transitioned and not subject to this new SASP and
related Zoning amendments for Downtown.
Click to expand...

The city wants to count it as a new submission:
We understand that Community Planning staff have suggested Cresford's Revised Proposal be
considered as a "new" application rather than a "resubmission". We disagree. In our opinion, if
Kingsett had revised the built form and design of their Original Proposal from two towers into
one and reduced the density, this would surely be a resubmission.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top