Great news. The remaining private land at the first parliament site has been swapped for public land across Parliament. They have the chance to do something really special here. And it'll be nice to see the parking lots across the street get developed too. Together they will go a long way to connecting the West Don Lands, the Distillery, and St. Lawrence together.
 
Pam McConnell orchestrated another land swap which led to Spire being built on land owned by St. James church. Developer initially wanted to build on the back of the church but i believe got a height for land agreement - built across the street instead. This is the kind of cooperation between the city and developers we need in this city to help get the built environment we want and need.
 
There are limits to that approach - swapping land with a private developer in order to acquire a site with value-added for the city is one thing; allowing additional density - far above and beyond what can be considered as reasonable - on the premise of land swapping is a questionable one.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
There are limits to that approach - swapping land with a private developer in order to acquire a site with value-added for the city is one thing; allowing additional density - far above and beyond what can be considered as reasonable - on the premise of land swapping is a questionable one.

AoD
Click to expand...

That's always going to be pretty subjective, even with city guidelines as to what has been deemed desirable density for a particular area. For instance I think Clear Spirit and Gooderham are "additional density far above and beyond what can be considered as reasonable", but I know others would vehemently disagree.
 
Xray:

The appropriateness of the towers at Distillery has to take into account the public benefit stemming from the overall preservation of the site, and it didn't require a land swap. In this instance, there doesn't seem to be any additional value added proposed by the developer that would suggest merit to higher densities - in fact, the urgency of this swap stems from the as-of-right development of the parcel as a data centre.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Xray_Crystal_Junkie said:
That's always going to be pretty subjective, even with city guidelines as to what has been deemed desirable density for a particular area. For instance I think Clear Spirit and Gooderham are "additional density far above and beyond what can be considered as reasonable", but I know others would vehemently disagree.
Click to expand...
The additional density on the margins of the Distillery District ensured that the historic buildings were restored (very well) and I think it was a pretty fair exchange. The restored area attracts MANY people every day now and the new towers are really not too much of a 'distraction'. If we lived in an ideal world they would not have been allowed but ...
 
Say what you want, but if the developers hadnt come into the Distillery District with demands....it would still be the derelict dump it was 20 years ago.
 
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. The site sold very quickly after the Distillery closed and the developer, Options for Homes, didn't waste too much time to begin developing the site. I'm not sure why they didn't follow through with their plan eventually selling to the current group however, it probably had to do with the increasing value of the site. Lots of money for a not for profit to build more units elsewhere.

Anyhow, their plan included only mid-rises; dozens of them. Almost every building was to have their roof ripped off and extra floors added. With that end, I'll take the current towers any day.
 
^^I don't understand why your tale contradicts what the others are saying about density being a condition of the developers to restore the district. That is obviously the case. The fact that we got full restoration with three surrounding towers seems to me, from a historical perspective, vastly superior to increasing density by building on top of the historical structures. From a neigbourhood perspective it would have been nice to have the density throughout the district by making everything midrise, but I prefer maintaining the historical buildings. With either developer, the demand was density.
 
While I don't find that the towers detract from the area, the Distillery District has achieved such destination status for locals and tourists alike that the commercial rents alone without any towers should be lucrative.
 
Overhead photos of the First Parilament site taken on July 14, 2012:

Parliament Square parkette (scoccer field) and the First Parliament site:
IMG_4446.jpg


First Parliament Site:
IMG_4447.jpg


The swap fproperty i.e. Library Administration facility lands and the Green P lot immediately south of it:
IMG_4448.jpg


Aerial view of First Parliament site and Library Administration facility lands (July 14, 2012):
IMG_4449.jpg
 
The potential of that whole area to be something special, is amazing. I love some of those surrounding buildings and the ones I hate (Staples) will be gone in no time, so I really see a bright future ahead, assuming that we don't screw it up with our usual condo drabness. We need to try something different for this unique location.
 
Torontovibe said:
The potential of that whole area to be something special, is amazing. I love some of those surrounding buildings and the ones I hate (Staples) will be gone in no time, so I really see a bright future ahead, assuming that we don't screw it up with our usual condo drabness. We need to try something different for this unique location.
Click to expand...
As is, I think, noted elsewhere on UT the Staples site was purchased by Greenpark Homes - not sure how long a lease Staples has though.
 
Torontovibe said:
The potential of that whole area to be something special, is amazing. I love some of those surrounding buildings and the ones I hate (Staples) will be gone in no time, so I really see a bright future ahead, assuming that we don't screw it up with our usual condo drabness. We need to try something different for this unique location.
Click to expand...

+1... Soooo much potential on the east side to create a wonderful, exciting district. River city is a good start, but I hope all the design in this area is of equivalent or better quality. No more generic crap!!! Especially not in what could be a really exciting area! Are you listening developers??
 
Note to MODS. As the FP site has now been bought by the City (or at least the process to get it into public hands has been approved) and the proposed development is dead it may be best to close this development thread and move over all First Parliament site posts to another thread, such as Ontario's First Parliament Site To Finally Get The Respect It Deserves? When a development (for the library and commemorative building) is announced a new FP building thread could be restarted.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top