ProjectEnd said:
How do you know that any of the 'designs' you've seen are the 'best?'
Click to expand...

Design is subjective, but this version is far superior in fitting into the context (colour, massing, etc) instead of dominating it. The original design was by far aA's weakest, lacking any sort of interest. I'm glad the DRP was correct this one instance.
 
I think this design is ok. Yes I wish more red brick was here with a bolder NimbyTect-style aesthetic--ie modern reinterpretation of Victorian architecture details included. (Check out what those screwball Europeans are doing: New Berlin Style for example!)

I wasn't necessarily commenting on it, but rather the city's heavy-handed approach to development: aka over regulation. How the hell can we take them seriously when their document shows--for the most part--the most mediocre architecture as good examples to follow?! Part of what makes the city interesting is the old Victorian-style streetscape of intermixed heights and styles. For example under the new regulations, the Burroughes building at Queen and Bathurst would not be allowed because it's incompatible with the height of its neighbours! Sounds like what will end up happening is developers will just move to more developer-friendly fields.

Toronto: Vancouver-style is not the model to follow. It's an utter aesthetic failure--the suburbanization of downtown living. Yawn.

The original design was actually quite nice. But the architects had the wrong street/context in mind: It would look fantastic on the Holt Renfrew site.
 
Last edited:
Rather restraint compromise but in the end I'm fine with this design. It's also light years ahead of all the 460 Yonge renditions.

The grade motif here can work well. All we really need here are sustained initiatives by community groups, BIAs to promote more interesting retail uses with the landlords and developers. Not expecting indie shops at all, but hopefully more variety and engaging in the form of restaurants, bars, (non-obvious) cafes, etc.
 
This design is very "forced" - too many redesigns, architectural fatigue. The podium is nice - great variation in materials and setbacks - but the towers don't work at all with the podium.

null-5.jpg
 
Just so that no one misunderstands, the project is not yet approved. The Planning Department is recommending approval, so as of next City Council meeting it is as good as approved. The vote at Community Council comes first (Oct 17) before going to City Council in November.

42
 
fedplanner said:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-62105.pdf
Click to expand...

Some good things to read in here:

"The design of the base will provide opportunity for narrow retail frontages similar to those found to the north of the site and immediately opposite the site. Staff are satisfied that the intent of the priority retail provision and the North Downtown Yonge Site and Area Specific Policy is met. A maximum at-grade retail frontage of 5 metres per unit will be secured in the zoning by-law."

From the site plan it looks like it proposes 6 retail spaces and one could perhaps be split. Based on the floorplan, this is likely because they couldn't make deep units due to the parking ramp.


as part of s37 agreement:
"The owner agrees to an additional contribution for local area park acquisition and/or improvements in the immediate area which may include 5 to 25 Wellesley Street West and 14 to 26 Breadalbane Street;"
 
greenleaf said:
as part of s37 agreement:
"The owner agrees to an additional contribution for local area park acquisition and/or improvements in the immediate area which may include 5 to 25 Wellesley Street West and 14 to 26 Breadalbane Street;"
Click to expand...

"may include" is legalese that takes into account that the S.37 agreement (and whole zoning by-law amendment application for that matter) for 11 Wellesley West (or that longer-form address above) has not been approved yet. S.37 monies from it, from this, and from The Britt will all go towards creating the park on the 11 Wellesley site.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The Planning Department is recommending approval, so as of next City Council meeting it is as good as approved. The vote at Community Council comes first (Oct 17) before going to City Council in November.

42
Click to expand...

Thanks ic42 for the info
30 months to get approval, thank god we are still in a building boom
 
innsertnamehere said:
Another Yonge street project has been approved! Good. This is infinitely better then it was when it was first approved.
Click to expand...

Yet a number of UTers griped about the fact that the original wasn't approved as-is. This, folks, is why we involve public opinion and discerning planning perspectives instead of approving developments mindlessly. It's far from a good system, but it's better than what developers will often attempt to get away with.
 
I see nothing to celebrate here. I live at Church and Alexander so the impact to me is minimal, but the south tower will be completely out of place in the neighborhood. Twenty or thirty stories would have been fine. 52 is insane. The only reason we ended up with 52/23 instead of chopping both towers equally is the pushback from the adjoining building on Maitland. I don't blame them, this was terrible for their building, but they were the only effective opposition and they got their way. The developer and staff kept speaking of the transition zone, so the higher south tower could be justified because it was transitioning from some mythical building that doesn't exist. The buildings to the south are substantially shorter. The developer also made the south building fatter and shrunk the space between the towers during the shortening process.

I hope the condo boom ends this winter and this never gets built. Lanterra will likey prioritize 11 Wellesley over this anyway so if the market slows, that one will be more likely to go,ahead.
 
Oh one odd thing. 155 visitor bicycle spots? I love cycling but that seems a tad high.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top