[ProjectEnd]

Nice!

I'm all for greenery, but those rooftop trees are very distracting and unnecessary.

Well the same architect and developer did manage it in Vancouver over 5 years ago...

http://petersonbc.com/sites/default...public/Woodwards - banner 4.jpg?itok=XTL6Rm5x

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2532/3835615019_c56b3a4431_b.jpg

http://rentitfurnished.com/vancouve...06vancouver_furnished_apartment_WOODWARDS.jpg

 

[NBGtect]

Oh, of course! It's easy to plant new trees on rooftops like shown here still in their rootball. It's far more difficult to actually establish trees with actual root-systems that high up in our climate and be sustainable. We have a difficult time sustaining street level trees. But, yes, ideally I'd love them, too. I'd love a city of rooftop trees! Is that actually possible?

 

[interchange42]

Here they're put behind higher glass walls, like at the top of the Shangri-La, and as is planned for the top of The One as well, as the glass will stop the worst of the wind from hitting the trees. Our climate is not as conducive to quick growth as Vancouver's is, so as long as they mitigate for our colder winters, it shouldn't be impossible here.

42

 

[Hamiltonian]

Having glass walls won't allow for the tree foliage to "spill" over the roof and create an abundant look, as seen in the 3D model.

 

[NBGtect]

If they are possible they will be little stick trees forever like in new home subdivisions not century-looking trees like in High Park lol. I just find it distracting trying to make it look like a forest so high above the ground.

 

[Armour]

Nice!

I'm all for greenery, but those rooftop trees are very distracting and unnecessary.

What would they distract one from? They look good to me.

 

[interchange42]

Having glass walls won't allow for the tree foliage to "spill" over the roof and create an abundant look, as seen in the 3D model.

Shangri-La has two-storey high glass walls because it's 66 storeys tall. They won't need that much here as the winds will be much lower. They'll probably look more like in the images of the Woodward's Building above, and those are negligible.

42

 

[Cityminded]

Those transparent boxes - especially the ones right at the intersection - could end up being built up to heights similar to or even higher than this Westbank project, thanks to the precedent it sets. This is a 'beachhead' project which could serve as a basis for future surrounding developments to apply for similar heights, densities, and built forms. That's why the transparent boxes should be taken with a grain of salt. Do you think this project will stand by itself, at over 20 storeys, while sites all around it are redeveloped to much shorter heights as suggested by those boxes?

Those transparent boxes are hilarious. Honestly, developers are going to go to great expense to assemble properties of that size on Bloor and then apply for an extra 2 to 3 storeys over what exists today? Unlikely.

To the extent that the transparent boxes show area residents that change is coming, though, that's a good thing. But they seem to have been designed at a scale not to give people heart palpitations, rather than in any effort to be realistic.

I imagine a lot of those existing buildings will be preserved, while still allowing for taller buildings, depending on the nature of the assemblies that happen.

 

[clarkburglar]

Ian Gillespie with some inspiring things to say about this project and his plans for Toronto:
http://architizer.com/blog/big-and-beyond-ian-gillespie-westbank/
"if all we do over the next five years is build a dozen of the best projects Toronto has ever seen, then we will have forever changed the city. Not for those dozen, but because everything subsequent will change as a result of them. We will do that in Toronto"

 

[Stupidandshallow]

Revised proposal -- from the project's portal on the city's website:

On May 19, 2016, a revised application was submitted.

The proposed development includes a number of mid-rise and tall buildings, ranging in height from 29-storeys at the southwest corner of Bathurst Street and Bloor Street West, to 6 and 7 storeys to the south and west, respectively. A number of potential heritage buildings fronting both sides of Markham street are proposed to be retained, while others are proposed to be removed.

The revised proposal comprises a total of 928 residential units in 65 ,174 m2 of residential floor area, and 15,992 m2 of new non-residential uses. The overall density of the site is FSI of 6.0. Vehicle access is proposed from Lennox Street, and vehicle parking (541 spaces) is proposed in 5 levels of underground parking. A total of 911 bike parking spaces are proposed. The building massing and height varies across the site with a maximum height of 29 storeys on the east mid-block side fronting Bathurst Street. The application proposes a minimum of 900 square metres of on-site parkland. Both Markham Street, which intersects the east and west blocks and the north-south laneway east of Markham Street, connecting Bloor Street West and Lennox Street, are proposed to remain in City ownership.

print screen of the cover letter listing some of the revisions:

A community consultation is scheduled for June 13

 

[P23]

A park in the area is definitely welcome, I would have liked to see it connected to Bloor but this is quite good.

 

[Tulse]

These are welcome changes for a project that was already pretty great.

 

[greenleaf]

While I really like the added park space, I have never found the mixed concrete blocks and grass particularly appealing. The grass always seems to end up muddy and worn out and never quite cared for. Everything else looks good though!

 

[Armour]

St. Augustinegrass or centipedegrass (commonly used in Florida) would probably hold up better to the trampling than the usual grass we use up here.

 

[GeneralGrievance]

Today's front-page update provides a fairly thorough rundown of last night's public consultation: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/06/mirvish-village-updated-plan-praised-criticized-consultation