* Mods *

Note that the heights have changed here, the south tower has gone from 33s to 41s; while the north tower has dropped a hair from 26s to 24s

Revised Heights:

South Tower: 41S (126.8m)

North Tower 24S ( 76.3m)

Base Building Height reduction (podium) as per the docs:

The revised proposal has reduced the height of the base building from 7-storeys (21.5 metres) to 4-storeys (16.8 metres) for the North Tower and 4-storeys (13.9 metres) for the South Tower. In addition, both the base buildings for the North Tower and South Tower contain non-residential uses.

Small, useless park is gone in favour of cash-in-lieu.

Guest Avenue is now retained in the proposal (not closed to cars)

Found a good synopsis in the Planning Rationale form:

1611769838594.png
 
Last edited:
Definitely not too fond of the towers though I am very glad they are keeping the (heritage) building because that little grain elevator is pretty adorable
 
I think the TTC might have to start planning to build a second entrance at Main Street Station because of the condo developments and the increase in population that is going to appear within the next decade.
 
Last edited:
Nuts2020 said:
I think the TTC might have to start planning to build a second entrance at Main Street Station because of the condo developments and the increase in population that is going to appear within the next decade.
Click to expand...

Main Station could use a number of investments.

Though it needs to be said that there are other stations in greater need.

Still; I agree an additional platform to surface connection would make sense, coming out at Coleman and Barrington. (at least one property would have to be purchased so that the exiting park maintains a visual link to Barrington.

Though, at Main Street, aside from some SOGR (state-of-good-repair) investments), I'd be inclined to prioritize 3 additional escalators.

There is ample room, but currently no down escalator path at Main Station.

This means no redundant escalator when the up escalator is not in operation.

It also means over-taxing the elevator for those that can't handle the stairs.

Of course there are countless other needs, some more pressing, across the system.
 
Last edited:
This one is headed to LPAT!

A Request for Direction report is headed to the Feb. 24th meeting of TEYCC seeking direction for staff to oppose this at LPAT.


People here will be happy to know staff clearly hold as dim a view of this proposal as most do here. Have a read:

1613057733411.png


When you get into the guts of the report, it pretty much shreds the proposal on so many levels.

Hopefully LPAT backs the City here.
 
Northern Light said:
This one is headed to LPAT!

A Request for Direction report is headed to the Feb. 24th meeting of TEYCC seeking direction for staff to oppose this at LPAT.


People here will be happy to know staff clearly hold as dim a view of this proposal as most do here. Have a read:

View attachment 299565

When you get into the guts of the report, it pretty much shreds the proposal on so many levels.

Hopefully LPAT backs the City here.
Click to expand...

So in a nutshell what does that mean?
 
Undead said:
The developer will need to improve their design if they want the thing approved.
Click to expand...
Not quite. The developer can take their chances at the LPAT and argue that their proposal makes perfect sense, if they believe they have a chance of winning at the LPAT. Otherwise, they may continue to work with the City to make changes before the LPAT hearing occurs. If they do settle with the City in advance of the LPAT hearing, then what would have taken and week or two to argue and likely months to adjudicate and rule on, would be replaced by a day-long hearing where the LPAT would approve the settlement, with or without conditions. If they don't settle with the City, they'd still be able to take their chances and argue for their submitted plan.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top