That cladding/balcony detail business hurts the eyes to look at... /sigh
 
cd concept said:
Love the height ! Wish there was more thicker cladding around the windows and doors for the tower.
Click to expand...

Hold on..........you're alive? I had no idea............ you've been so oddly quiet, for so long.
 
I still can't find anything in the AIC that suggests there's even been an application for greater height.........

Hey, Detective @Art Tsai we have a mystery for you to solve!
 
cd concept said:
Love the height ! Wish there was more thicker cladding around the windows and doors for the tower.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'd love to see that textural expression extrapolated. It would be reminiscent of the brise-soliels that became such a powerful mainstay of modernism. See the Durand project by Le Corbusier, in Algiers, 1933, as his first example of it. That would be a breathe of fresh air compared to these flat, cheap facades.
 
ProjectEnd said:
The correct number was posted a couple pages back. Model is built and everything. Not sure why they're not trying to get that height entitled...
Click to expand...
\/
Koops65 said:
Definitely looks like 68 floors, perhaps the thread title needs to be changed.
Click to expand...
See above. It's not yet approved. Thread titles only list approved heights.
Northern Light said:
I still can't find anything in the AIC that suggests there's even been an application for greater height.........

Hey, Detective @Art Tsai we have a mystery for you to solve!
Click to expand...
Nothing to date. No clue why.
 
ProjectEnd said:
\/

See above. It's not yet approved. Thread titles only list approved heights.
Click to expand...
Actually many thread titles include proposed (submitted but not yet approved) heights.

Unless you meant approved by UT (once submission docs exist).
 
3Dementia said:
Actually many thread titles include proposed (submitted but not yet approved) heights.

Unless you meant approved by UT (once submission docs exist).
Click to expand...
I was going to say. It's usually what the developer is aiming for until The City says otherwise...

...I think the problem here though is that it's not really apparent what the developer is aiming for. Hence, the thread info is the last thing they have submitted, I believe.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I was going to say. It's usually what the developer is aiming for until The City says otherwise...

...I think the problem here though is that it's not really apparent what the developer is aiming for. Hence, the thread info is the last thing they have submitted, I believe.
Click to expand...
"Got approved". Thread titles only get 'locked' once an approval is in hand is my understanding. Until then, yes, @3Dementia is correct: it's just the latest submission. That said, perhaps @interchange42 can adjudicate here?
 
We've debated whether we can somehow indicate whether a particular height/number of storeys is approved or not in thread titles. There's only so much you can fit in them, length-wise, and still be a brief summary of what's going on anyway, while as yet we don't have the ability to add something like colour to a thread title to indicate what the status is of the numbers quoted.

For The One and Pinnacle One Yonge, we've run the proposed increases as the height of a building in storeys and metres…

…but as there's not application here yet and we don't know the sought after count in metres, it would be very odd to have 68 storeys but only the corresponding height in. metres for the 49-storey version.

So… I just want them to submit their ZBA so we get all the new data (which would include al sorts of other numbers that we track in the database files but which are only available to paying customers) so we can acknowledge what's going on here.

42
 
Pretty bold of the developer. Imagine having to explain to a buyer that the unit they purchased on the 62nd floor no longer exists because they couldn't get the height increase that they promised?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top