Why are they creating a new rendering when the city said they are not going to pass it anyway in this location . The only way they're going to pass anything is that the whole park sits on top of the development. And that could be an idea !!
 
^^^ could you clarify? Are you suggesting a park 40 storeys in the air? ;-)

Maybe in addition to fewer towers, a beefed up stilt design like BIG in Miami would open up more of the northern portion of the site (have to add mass tuned dampers).

BIG_MiamiStilts.jpg


https://www.dezeen.com/2018/08/08/miami-produce-center-big-warehouse-housing-offices/

P.S. Come to think of it, would love to see BIG take a run at this sort of idea (fewer stepped towers and an engineering nightmare). ;-)
 
Last edited:
It seems every square inch of this city has to be covered in high rises. Well, the above multi-level rooftop spaces aren't practical. It would have to be more to the tune of Marina Bay Sands in Singapore but, of course, taller.
 
This is no more the High Line Park (something that passes through numerous neighbourhoods and different building purposes, including a variety of residential, offices and museums) than the Bay Adelaide Centre is Rockefeller Center.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Mostly procedural, but for the record: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlpat/doc/2020/2020canlii77941/2020canlii77941.pdf
Click to expand...

There's some actual decisions buried in there...........along with a lot of derision heaped on the City by the Tribunal.

Without seeing the underlying evidence, I can't speak to the fairness of that tone; but I can say it might give rise to the reasonable apprehension of bias by the Tribunal should the matter head to Divisional Court.

Very curious here is that I'm now seeing CN/TTR have not closed on the transaction with Craft/PITS in respect of the lands east of Spadina (at the time of decision).

It appears they required various severance, consolidations, and easements in order to make that happen.

A very odd order of operations.

Of note, pre-decision was that the City did not own a piece of Blue Jays Way in this space (presumably across the tracks).

From the decision:

47]The East Block, which is the subject site, is not currently a separate conveyable parcel—it is joined with the public street known as Blue Jays Way. Blue Jays Way is not owned by the City but exists by way of easement on the CN and TTR properties. Given that these are not severed by Blue Jays Way, much of the CN/TTR lands extend easterly well beyond BlueJays Way to York Street. Accordingly, the subject site, in title, forms part of the same parcel upon which Blue Jays Way sits as well as lands beyond. In order to separate and consolidate the subject site to create a separate conveyable parcel, the subject consent applications are necessary
 
karledice said:
I don't understand the legal languages...does this mean that the land is no longer designated for parks only or what?
Click to expand...
The air space was never designated for parks only. The LPAT decision on OP395 was made without prejudice to the private application, meaning it had no impact on the private development application.

OP395 had more PR value than practical value. The City can buy or expropriate land anywhere in the city for park purposes. They don't have to justify the designation at LPAT. On the flip side, if they designate land as park they have to buy or expropriate the land. If OP395 never happened, it would not change anything.
 
If the "park" portion could flow into the linear park north of CityPlace and convert the roadway there into something a little less "roadway," and more of a shared throughway, the park space would feel that much larger, diminishing the impact of the proposed towers.

While I'm ambivalent about towers on the site the Safdie proposal is intriguing. If executed properly, the whole thing could be spectacular. It's hard to see how the city can afford to do this without some form of partnership.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top