Torontovibe said:
Can you think of any newish developments where an all glass retail space transformed into a good-looking retail space, once a tenant renovated it? I can't think of any, off hand. Where are the new great retail developments? (never mind great, I'll settle for creative or interesting)
Click to expand...

Victory Condos on King West.
 
Pano of the site, taken today:

8856689284_894ee83fda_c.jpg
 
According to a notice sent to local residents, the community consultation meeting for this project is this Tuesday, June 18, 7pm, at St Andrew's Lutheran Church (Jarvis & Carlton).
 
Thernan said:
Did anyone attend this meeting and if so, how did it go?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was there. It got off to a slightly rocky start, in that nobody showed up to unlock the venue and the organizers had to scramble to find a last-minute space in the hotel across the street, but once the actual meeting got underway it went pretty smoothly. Aside from the usual "ZOMG it's too tall!!!" comments, the main concerns raised were shadow impacts on Church St PS and Tobias House (the latter having windows facing the site from about 5m away, so they'd probably lose their sun even with a 15 storey building), and the erosion of the Gay Village (e.g. with Zipperz being displaced and -- if other condo-base retail is any indication -- likely to be replaced by a bank, or at best a chain restaurant).

The renderings shown were the same as the ones that can be found on the UT database page, plus a few additional angles. Several people spoke in praise of the tower architecture, although there wasn't quite as much love for the podium. Amusingly, I overheard the architect in the hall before the meeting started, lamenting that the tower would have looked better if it were 10 storeys taller.

Someone from the city spoke about about the rental housing replacement bylaw, which was new to me, although it's mentioned in the prelim report. The developer will be required to set aside 13 units as rentals to replace apartments that are being demolished, and they'll be rented at "similar" prices to the existing apartments, with the current tenants getting first crack at them. For me, the most interesting takeaway from that portion of the meeting was the fact that there's apparently a 900+ sq ft "studio" apartment in the basement of Zipperz. That must be one weird apartment!

Councilor Wong-Tam reminded everyone that the OMB still exists and that various planning documents call for intensification on that site, basically saying (though not in so many words) that people better make peace with the fact that a high rise is going to be built there whether they like it or not. She also mentioned the North Yonge Design Framework or whatever it's called, passed that very day at city council, and how that might impact the design; for example she said the city will be "pushing hard" for wider sidewalks (and consequentially a slightly smaller tower footprint) on Carlton.
 
I hope that the tower, or at least its podium, maintains the strong streetwall along College/Carlton.
 
It's a shame that a night club space in the proposed podium couldn't replace what's being lost with Zipperz.
 
Did they speak to phase 2, in the parking lot at Wood and Church? It was mentioned in the information that they were reserving that areas for the Phase 2 floor plate.
 
I like the condo, but the street level experience must be respected. The RBC/BMO combo at the foot of Aura is shudder-worthy, and something like it should be avoided at all costs here.
 
Thernan said:
Did they speak to phase 2, in the parking lot at Wood and Church? It was mentioned in the information that they were reserving that areas for the Phase 2 floor plate.
Click to expand...

There is no Phase 2 (currently). They included a "theoretical" tower to the north in their shadow studies, on the grounds that somebody might build one there someday, but it was just a slightly dishonest way of masking the shadow impact of their own building. When asked, Tribute confirmed that they do not own the site, and the City confirmed that they have received no application regarding it.
 
OK, though I would suspect that they should have said "They don't own the site...yet"

THe garage exit laneway behind the building won't line up with the existing laneway that leads to Mutual between those public housing buildings. I imagine they would want to rectify that but have not yet landed on a reasonable purchase price for the parking lot at this time.
 
45s is pretty high for this area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top