- Thread starter BobBob
- Start date
good_times
New Member
They won't support the height, and they definitely won't support the 5.5m rear setback or the 0m setbacks from Adelaide and Charlotte. This is already a tiny floorplate, I don't think they can shrink it any further and have it stand up. Will be interesting to see what comes out of mediation.
PMT
Senior Member
innsertnamehere
Superstar
142m now, and has lost the single, albeit very small, retail unit that was originally planned at ground level.
Also, the parking system planned here is rather unique. And complicated. I would not be a fan of it if I had to park a car in it.
Also, the parking system planned here is rather unique. And complicated. I would not be a fan of it if I had to park a car in it.
Database file updated with new height, new unit count, new renderings. (Woohoo: you can now see the crown of the building in the thumbnail!)
42
42
Gphorce
Active Member
I like it, but I just wish developers were more daring with their palettes. Why not deep crimson red, or pumpkin orange? Colour feels like a breath of fresh air in this city sometimes!
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
142.25m, rounding up to.3. This has been updated in The 100m List, falling to spot 179.
Just a request: please post heights with changes like this to a tenth of a metre. If it is on the metre, make it "xxx.0". Thanks!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
![IMG_7225[1].JPG](http://cdn.skyrisecities.com/forum/data/attachments/110/110730-08b9cf0205b051cb5ff0db2899fbb13e.jpg)
cd concept
Senior Member
This building has a simple but affective looking facade. I seen a couple of coloured rendering
images. I was wondering when this building going to start?
images. I was wondering when this building going to start?
PMT
Senior Member
PMT
Senior Member
ProjectEnd
Superstar
PMT
Senior Member
AHK
Senior Member
LPAT Decision Released - Appeal by the developer has been denied. From the document:
CONCLUSION
[120] The Tribunal prefers the evidence and submissions of the City, DevGreat Inc.
and 1708305 Ontario Inc. that this project fails to conform to the built form policies of
sections 3.1 of the OP and the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. This conclusion has
been informed, in part, by the TBDG and the King-Spadina UDG.
[121] With no density standards, acceptable built form is established through standards
for height, setbacks and stepbacks. This proposed development is well in excess of the
height standard and has not fully achieved the setbacks and setbacks which were
established to reflect the prevailing character of the buildings in this part of the city.
[122] The built form has limited contribution to the public realm and does not serve a
purpose beyond the development site itself. The Tribunal agrees with the City’s
witnesses that the provision of 4 m between the wall of the proposed building and the
edge of the curb on Adelaide Street and the 5 m on Charlotte Street is a very limited
contribution to the public realm considering the degree of intensification.
[123] The Tribunal acknowledges that this development is not consistent with the
position of Toronto Council as explicitly provided for with the direction provided to City
staff on April 26, 2017. As heard throughout this hearing, not all sites are appropriate
tower sites. The Tribunal finds that this proposal would lead to an overdevelopment that
is not reflective of the immediate area. This site is more appropriately suited to a more
modest building which would provide for an appropriate level of intensification for this
small site.
[124] Having found that the proposal does not conform to the City’s OP, the Tribunal
must dismiss the appeals.
ORDER
[125] The Tribunal orders that these appeals are dismissed.
“L.M. Bruce”
L. M. BRUCE
MEMBER
CONCLUSION
[120] The Tribunal prefers the evidence and submissions of the City, DevGreat Inc.
and 1708305 Ontario Inc. that this project fails to conform to the built form policies of
sections 3.1 of the OP and the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. This conclusion has
been informed, in part, by the TBDG and the King-Spadina UDG.
[121] With no density standards, acceptable built form is established through standards
for height, setbacks and stepbacks. This proposed development is well in excess of the
height standard and has not fully achieved the setbacks and setbacks which were
established to reflect the prevailing character of the buildings in this part of the city.
[122] The built form has limited contribution to the public realm and does not serve a
purpose beyond the development site itself. The Tribunal agrees with the City’s
witnesses that the provision of 4 m between the wall of the proposed building and the
edge of the curb on Adelaide Street and the 5 m on Charlotte Street is a very limited
contribution to the public realm considering the degree of intensification.
[123] The Tribunal acknowledges that this development is not consistent with the
position of Toronto Council as explicitly provided for with the direction provided to City
staff on April 26, 2017. As heard throughout this hearing, not all sites are appropriate
tower sites. The Tribunal finds that this proposal would lead to an overdevelopment that
is not reflective of the immediate area. This site is more appropriately suited to a more
modest building which would provide for an appropriate level of intensification for this
small site.
[124] Having found that the proposal does not conform to the City’s OP, the Tribunal
must dismiss the appeals.
ORDER
[125] The Tribunal orders that these appeals are dismissed.
“L.M. Bruce”
L. M. BRUCE
MEMBER
bilked
Senior Member
After all the money invested by both sides into this process, can the OMB not provide more guidance than “a more modest building would provide for an appropriate level of intesification”? Doesn’t this just leave the parties debating “how long is a rope”?
I much prefer decisions such as 170 Spadina where the OMB actually provided some clear insight into what level of intensification was appropriate for the site. The developer was then able to proceed fairly quickly with the benefit of that guidance.
It’s hard to imagine that these zero sum outcomes really serve the interests of either side.
I much prefer decisions such as 170 Spadina where the OMB actually provided some clear insight into what level of intensification was appropriate for the site. The developer was then able to proceed fairly quickly with the benefit of that guidance.
It’s hard to imagine that these zero sum outcomes really serve the interests of either side.