ptbotrmpfn said:
So why not cut the previous one down.. keeping that design. It might have looked just as good. And the angles could have appeared more extreme? To bad. This new design is needing a little help. Maybe some sorta thing going up the back side/North side. Perhaps curve the balconies or something.
Click to expand...
I am not in the camp that thinks that the taller proposal was smoke and mirrors. Here's another reason why…

Cresford believed that the lot size should provide them with a certain density, and they stuffed it into a very tall, elegant tower in the original plan. The City, while seemingly finding the density reasonable (they negotiated to drop the density by less than 4%), took 13% out of the height.

Cresford has always aimed for a building of a certain size here: that has not really changed with a drop in the height.

So, if the City allows you X density, then you go for it, even if the resulting building is no longer as graceful.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I am not in the camp that thinks that the taller proposal was smoke and mirrors. Here's another reason why…

Cresford believed that the lot size should provide them with a certain density, and they stuffed it into a very tall, elegant tower in the original plan. The City, while seemingly finding the density reasonable (they negotiated to drop the density by less than 4%), took 13% out of the height.

Cresford has always aimed for a building of a certain size here: that has not really changed with a drop in the height.

So, if the City allows you X density, then you go for it, even if the resulting building is no longer as graceful.

42
Click to expand...

^this.
seemed pretty self evident to me... not sure why others would think cresford didn't want to build the original tower as proposed... or would retain the exact same design/floor plan when the city chopped off 15 floors on the height... they have to make the revenue projections somehow...
 
I'm also very saddened to see the original proposal die, but I'm trying to look on the positive side. The new proposal is still pretty tall and elegant by Toronto standards, and at least the project is finally moving forward. I mean, a decent design with zoning approval is better than an outstanding design with no approval, right?
 
0PknGol.png
 
Why couldn't they keep the last rendering design and lower it to 300 meters, the design looked great !
 
I agree the current design isn't the greatest. Could have been better. A wide 300ish metre tower just looks out of place in this location and doesn't blend too well with the rest of the skyline. Speaking of the Chelsea Gardens twins; they too will be chopped down by 10% or so.
 
cd concept said:
Why couldn't they keep the last rendering design and lower it to 300 meters, the design looked great !
Click to expand...

Cresford likely wanted a certain density of units, so they would have been missing out if they had lowered the height without changing the massing.
 
so what's next? assuming cresford and the city came to an agreement last week, is construction going to start soon?
 
Which city department gave permission for Cresford to have vacant retail units all along their property? It's really done a huge disservice to the feel of that stretch of Yonge and the quality of the entire area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top