Final Report, approval recommended, to the next meeting of TEYCC:


S.37 Benefits:

1655484923842.png


**
1655484967998.png
 
Why should the owner contribute anything toward the Bentway project at Lower Simcoe? This site is over 1.3km from that location. I think it would be more productive to connect the St. Lawrence neighborhood to the Lakeside, and vice versa.
 
PasticheProtégé said:
Why should the owner contribute anything toward the Bentway project at Lower Simcoe? This site is over 1.3km from that location. I think it would be more productive to connect the St. Lawrence neighborhood to the Lakeside, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
No… the site (200 Queens Quay WEST) is at the intersection of Simcoe & Harbour.
 
The black panel cladding on that podium is pretty dire for such a low, visible area. Getting some real low effort VE vibes on that. Also not sure why there are giant chunky v columns with only 1 or 2 storeys to support above. Surely the transfer is kept under the tower portion. Hope they do better as this design evolves.
 
If they are just upgrading the antennas, I'm A-ok with the parking garage sitting there while I recover.

Still reeling from the (fantasy?) down-grade from the best thing Wallman has ever designed imo... to (if magically built as originally rendered)... potentially the best thing on our waterfront despite the challenging site.

I know... no VE-free dreaming allowed.
 
wmedia said:
Two large mobile cranes are removing stuff from the roof of the parking garage, possibly the antennas.
(Photo credit: Ian Campbell)

View attachment 423161
Click to expand...
3Dementia said:
If they are just upgrading the antennas, I'm A-ok with the parking garage sitting there while I recover.

Still reeling from the (fantasy?) down-grade from the best thing Wallman has ever designed imo... to (if magically built as originally rendered)... potentially the best thing on our waterfront despite the challenging site.

I know... no VE-free dreaming allowed.
Click to expand...

Since you asked...............here ya go:

1661628803262.png
 
xy3 said:
The stubby podium is not only ugly but also a waste of space
Click to expand...

I agree; but with the following notes.....

1) They have to fulfill their requirements for indoor and outdoor amenity spaces, which this podium allows them to do. We can, of course, debate the virtue of such requirements, but there we are........

2) I find the park component silly due to its absurdly small size; I'd be tempted to suggest they ditch the extended podium, cede the land to Parks, get a charity receipt for the donation and/or a waiver of their outdoor amenity requirement, the park fulfilling that obligation............this would enlarge the park by a factor of more than 2 and make it somewhat less silly. However, there is parking under that podium; and the City does not like to accept 'strata' parks, for good reasons. I might argue for slashing the parking drastically, if not removing it from this proposal, but I suspect the proponent would not agree.

***

I'll further add, if they must build the podium, as with the entire tower, I'd prefer different cladding.

Edit to add; forget the tower, sadly, since they've invested a great deal in its design by now........... I wonder if they could be talked into a podium that mixes in Mass Timber, softening and warming up the podium, and then a higher
quality black finish that would sleekly trim it out, with black-framed glazing.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Edit to add; forget the tower, sadly, since they've invested a great deal in its design by now........... I wonder if they could be talked into a podium that mixes in Mass Timber, softening and warming up the podium, and then a higher quality black finish that would sleekly trim it out, with black-framed glazing.
Click to expand...
Good idea... but instead of forgetting about the tower, how about something doable to go with that podium. Ensure the "higher quality black" cladding continues up the tower, changing the grey floor slab and balcony accents... to gold/bronze.

This is also a pre-emptive v-e strike, in case Alias gets fully Madison-ed.
 
Northern Light said:
I agree; but with the following notes.....

1) They have to fulfill their requirements for indoor and outdoor amenity spaces, which this podium allows them to do. We can, of course, debate the virtue of such requirements, but there we are........

2) I find the park component silly due to its absurdly small size; I'd be tempted to suggest they ditch the extending podium, cede the land to Parks, get a charity receipt for the donation and/or a waiver of their outdoor amenity requirement, the park fulfilling that obligation............this would enlarge the park by a factor of more than 2 and make it somewhat less silly. However, there is parking under that podium; and the City does not like to accept 'strata' parks, for good reasons. I might argue for slashing the parking drastically, if not removing it from this proposal, but I suspect the proponent would not agree.

***

I'll further add, if they must build the podium, as with the entire tower, I'd prefer different cladding.

Edit to add; forget the tower, sadly, since they've invested a great deal in its design by now........... I wonder if they could be talked into a podium that mixes in Mass Timber, softening and warming up the podium, and then a higher
quality black finish that would sleekly trim it out, with black-framed glazing.
Click to expand...
They absolutely could not. Cheaper? Sure, of course! More expensive / higher quality? Not a hope in hell.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top