Josh said:
A friend of mine was working on the original design - they've stopped work since the change of hands. I would expect a completely new design from a different architect at some point.
Click to expand...
I hope that there will be something coming soon. Most of the businesses on that block are already empty even though I'm sure it will be another year at least before they can even start demo.
 
Josh said:
A friend of mine was working on the original design - they've stopped work since the change of hands. I would expect a completely new design from a different architect at some point.
Click to expand...

This is indeed the case. Can't disclose the new arch(s) or approach yet though, sorry.
 
I dig the concept of this I just wish they could have made it more interesting by making the taller towers lower portion look like the top portion of the shorter tower. So they are the same but altered or flipped. The top portion of the smaller tower looks "off" as is. Just My Opinion I Supose.
 
Last edited:
If the design is going to be altered or totally changed. I hope they create a better looking bridge. Every bridge built on a building that I've seen looks like a cheap rectangle looking box. It would be nice to see the corners rounded off. Or maybe a round or oval looking bridge design that views a nice panoramic look!
 
interchange42 said:
Bait and sell. The seller can't make the buyer use the same plans or architect.

42
Click to expand...


Legal niceties aside, I can certainly agree that if I bought a property, I ought not to be bound by a previous owner's aspirations.

However, I likewise think that rezoning that is essentially offered based (at least in part) on a rendering and a site plan ought to also be quashable if the plan/render materially changes.

That doesn't mean that the new owner can't obtain the same zoning, merely that they ought not have it, as-of-right.

I realize the law does not currently work that way, and developers would not appreciate my suggestion.

Moreover, that in most circumstances, City's are current forbidden from actually approving development on the basis of aesthetics or renders.

But we all know that the reality, in most cases, is that planners, and city councillors and even the general public may be more inclined to sacrifice a well loved, or even protected
building..........or accept a height, density, or shadow that they might otherwise not, because a proposed building is widely deemed a beauty.

The law should acknowledge this and codify 'the trade', any rezoning should only be valid, in a time-limited way, for the proposal brought forward to achieve said zoning. It should not be transferable at will or whim to a materially different proposal.
 
Yes, Northern Light, it boils down to the "public interest", an amorphous concept up to now that some suspect is little more than a " wink and a nod ". For transparency at least, there needs to be the appearance of binding clauses in the development process so that what's initially put out there for preferred zoning consideration meets what ends up on the street.
 
@Northern Light: Note that rezoning is not in place yet for 385 Yonge, so depending upon the extent of the changes to the proposal, a resubmission could be required… and of course by the time the building is up for Site Plan Approval, fully detailed documentation of the new proposal would be supplied to the City in any case.

Had the sale occurred after zoning bylaw approval had been attained, the new owners would still not be required to keep the new plan, but they would have to resubmit for another ZBA if their revised proposal could not be accommodated within the new bylaw.

In any case, with the YSL marketing teasers having been out there for a few months now, I imagine it cannot be too much longer before just what Cresford has in mind here goes public.

42
 
I hope to see one tower opposed to two and keep the corner heritage building unaltered.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top