I wonder why lately almost every proposed development in the east end gets non support/re-design-chop down from the DRP....Strange, i guess nothing is good enough for the folks out there:confused:
 
It's called "not settling", and it's a very good thing most of the time.
 
Considering the high amount of duds at this year's Pug Awards, it's always a positive to see higher design standards and initiatives. Especially in an area of such rich historical and contemporary (Mozo, EAST, SAS, etc.) buildings. The current design for 25 Ontario is better than the original, but still needs much more refinement. The massing proportions seem awkward, with the lower bulk too heavy. Overall the design is just too messy and the transition between components does not flow smoothly.
 
Last edited:
Better, at the very least, and it looks like they're retaining the Sun building to some degree. Add me to the camp of those who actually like the existing building, specifically the "crinkle cut fry" detailing. Judging by the redesign, its loss won't be completely in vain.
 
I always found this building interesting...and somewhat funny as well with the two porthole type windows at the north east...so I'm happy that its being incorporated in this project.

IMG_1138_zps3dc5d5c2.jpg
 
The final City approval for this project was on the Council agenda last week but Pam McConnell proposed it be deferred. Anyone know why?

TE21.14 Final Report - 25 Ontario Street - Zoning Amendment Application
 
DSC said:
The final City approval for this project was on the Council agenda last week but Pam McConnell proposed it be deferred. Anyone know why?

TE21.14 Final Report - 25 Ontario Street - Zoning Amendment Application
Click to expand...

Probably because of a new design, since Great Gulf just purchased the site.

Something tells me its for an office and not a condo project but I could very well be mistaken
 
investican said:
Probably because of a new design, since Great Gulf just purchased the site.

Something tells me its for an office and not a condo project but I could very well be mistaken
Click to expand...

You are replying to a comment from February. Are you sure GG has purchased the site?

The problem still persists and the latest time the Final Report came up was in October 2013.

"City Council considered this item on October 8, 2013 and postponed its consideration to a later date."

The delays in approval were / are because the SAS Building had / has problems with the design (I think vent shafts etc)
 
DSC said:
You are replying to a comment from February. Are you sure GG has purchased the site?

The problem still persists and the latest time the Final Report came up was in October 2013.

"City Council considered this item on October 8, 2013 and postponed its consideration to a later date."

The delays in approval were / are because the SAS Building had / has problems with the design (I think vent shafts etc)
Click to expand...

I am not affiliated with Great Gulf.

Site it sold. Don't know if the deal has closed.

Information I deem reliable from a business associate. I have no reason to doubt his findings.

I don't get the significance that the previous post was in february--
 
Hey this would be great ! An office building here is perfect ...
 
Great Gulf are now proposing a27 storey rental building so the Planners are recommending it needs more consultation. Their Report is at Council today.
See: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-72965.pdf

In particular it states:

This application was originally recommended to be approved by City Council for a 21-storey condominium building with retail at-grade in 2013. The site has been acquired by First Gulf, and the application has now been revised to propose a 27-storey apartment rental building with retail at-grade. In order to address outstanding noise and air emission impacts from the neighbouring office use, substantial changes have been made from the previous staff supported proposal. The latest proposal will require a comprehensive review, along with appropriate notification to the public.

Mods may want to change the figures in header - I am not sure if the architect has also been changed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top