If you look at the site plan there is a single, 4.6m width townhouse remaining between it and the adjacent condo. As for why, I have no idea. Likely an owner who didn't want to sell.

Also, the renderings show the gap for the townhouse there, but haven't included the townhouse itself for some reason.
 
innsertnamehere said:
If you look at the site plan there is a single, 4.6m width townhouse remaining between it and the adjacent condo. As for why, I have no idea. Likely an owner who didn't want to sell.

Also, the renderings show the gap for the townhouse there, but haven't included the townhouse itself for some reason.
Click to expand...

How can this proposed development be appropriate and desirable in urban design terms?


This is what I found....

"Although it would be desirable, from a planning
and urban design perspective, to achieve a
comprehensive redevelopment of the properties
at 445-453 Adelaide Street West, attempts to
assemble the property at 453 Adelaide Street West
have so far proven unsuccessful. In this regard,
there is no reasonable planning mechanism to
compel an owner to participate in a land assembly
if it is unwilling to do so. In such circumstances,
the decision to approve a development proposal
in the absence of a full property consolidation
represents an appropriate balancing of potentially
competing planning objectives; otherwise,
achievement of the intensification objectives
set out in Provincial and City policy documents
could be frustrated and otherwise appropriate
developments could be unreasonably delayed or
precluded."

Source: Bousfields Inc. Planning and Urban Design Rationale 445 -451 Adelaide Street

townhome.jpg
 

Attachments

  • townhome.jpg
    townhome.jpg
    78.7 KB · Views: 896
Last edited by a moderator:
This should'nt be approved. Nothing wrong with the scale or design but the loss of the old Row Houses and heritage home are not worth it. If the city doesn't want to protect our heritage maybe an idea would be to dismantle and move our old buildings to a designated historical part of town. A bit like what Markham has done with all the old homesteads that were relocated for suburban sprawl. D.C has also been doing this. http://www.npr.org/2012/07/10/155917108/moving-buildings-to-save-d-c-s-historic-foundation
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • BugsBunny1.png
    BugsBunny1.png
    542.2 KB · Views: 1,145
  • BugsBunny2.png
    BugsBunny2.png
    853.8 KB · Views: 1,089
This stuff does happen in real life.

Unknown-2.jpeg
Unknown.jpeg
Unknown-3.jpeg
Unknown-1.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • Unknown-2.jpeg
    Unknown-2.jpeg
    13 KB · Views: 813
  • Unknown.jpeg
    Unknown.jpeg
    13.9 KB · Views: 776
  • Unknown-1.jpeg
    Unknown-1.jpeg
    9.6 KB · Views: 777
  • Unknown-3.jpeg
    Unknown-3.jpeg
    11.1 KB · Views: 792
The Ross one is particularly hilarious to me.

There is a specific name for them, I forget what it is though. There is a wikipedia page and everything for them.
 
Also at Rockefeller Center. From wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holdout_(real_estate):

"Similarly, 30 Rockefeller Center, also in New York, has slight setbacks at its corners of 49th and 50th streets on 6th Avenue due to two buildings at those corners. The owner of 1258 6th Avenue, John F. Maxwell, grandson of the original owner, outright refused to sell to John D. Rockefeller during his land grab for construction of the complex, whereas, while Rockefeller was successful in purchasing the townhouse at 1240 6th Avenue, the lessees, who had signed a long-term lease, refused to vacate unless they were bought out to their asking sum of $250 million (equivalent to $3.9 billion in 2017)"

http://www.scoutingny.com/about-that-little-townhouse-on-sixth-avenue/
 
I love these little holdouts and think it's insane that with everything we know about variety and unpredictability in healthy streetscapes, people seriously opine that developments would be better if they were incorporated and eliminated. Sure, for the east and profitability of the project perhaps, but for the health of the streetscape and the broader city? Absolutely not.
 
AlbertC said:
I don't have details regarding if/when Daniels tried to buy them out or not, but Champs Food Supplies on Widmer between Cinema Tower and TIFF Lightbox looks like an example of this here.
Click to expand...
They did try!

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top