Gee, how much more density can the Entertainment District handle:eek:


102 PETER ST
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District

Zoning by-law amendment application for two towers: a 48-storey tower (156.25 metres including mechanical penthouse) and a 40-storey tower (130.15 metres including mechanical penthouse) containing 899 residential units on a 6 storey podium including two levels of retail space, and 225 underground parking spaces. The application proposes to demolish proposed heritage properties at 350 and 352 Adelaide Street West, and 118 Peter Street.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 16 183537 STE 20 OZ Jun 30, 2016 Under Review
 
The first developer to recognize the need for a large grocery store in the entertainment district will reap a good ongoing long-term cash flow source- and i'm not talking a mini urban grocery store. It appears Graywood missed the mark on that one.
 
If this is going ahead as proposed it is going to turn out hideous.

The towers themselves are boring, repetitive and basic from 2001. While interesting the artistic elevator core is going to end up looking cheap, and once weather takes hold there is just going to be one giant streak mark from water stains down the side.

A hodgepodge that ultimately fails in my opinion.
 
Sorry to bump this thread, but the (excellent) first Growth to Watch For article in which this development is featured got me wondering: Will the (better) iteration of this design where the curves/expression on the elevator shaft is carried through to the podium survive?

Seems like some of the podiums (podia?) on some of the neater buildings recently constructed are unfortunately simplified in the final VE (thinking of One Bloor and Picasso right now, though I know there's not unanimity on either of those), where you've got a great building with a unique design that didn't get carried through on the podium, arguably to the detriment of the overall quality of the design. I hope that doesn't happen here.

Here's the rendering that was included in the story, avec curvy flourish:
350AdelaideWCrnrN960.jpg


...and here's the rendering in the database file sans curvy flourish:
350AdelaideWSqPod960.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 350AdelaideWCrnrN960.jpg
    350AdelaideWCrnrN960.jpg
    222.6 KB · Views: 848
  • 350AdelaideWSqPod960.jpg
    350AdelaideWSqPod960.jpg
    295.2 KB · Views: 796
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting. Can't say I'm surprised--and I'm looking forward to that festooned vestibule being unceremoniously bulldozed.
 
I love that little building and hope it will be saved and restored. It is a little jewel that may be one of the most interesting little gems left.
 
jje1000 said:
Small note of interest:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...longer-torontos-no-mans-land/article33621447/

Time is probably ticking for the New York Furs building.

Would be great if the building was renovated like the old Spadina Hotel site a few blocks west.
Click to expand...
Worth noting that that despite the photo, that article refers to Four Seasons Fur on the southwest corner of Adelaide and Peter, not New York Fur of the heritage house on the northwest corner. I'm sure it'll see some action soon enough, but it's not owned by Allied, at least not as far as I know.
 
Preliminary Report: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-101219.pdf

The proposal for two connected towers is not supportable. The resulting building mass is too large, resulting in insufficient separation distances, a very large floor plate and significant impact on on-site and adjacent heritage resources. The proposal also does not adequately address the King Spadina Secondary Plan Policies, direction of the King Spadina Heritage Conservation District or Tall Building Guidelines. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with the City in an attempt to address these issues.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top