Big Daddy
Senior Member
Could be interesting depending on the amount of mullions.
Last edited:
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
greenleaf
Senior Member
Intention to Designate under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act - 7-11 Gloucester Street: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.PB33.18
"This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 7-11 Gloucester Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The trio of row houses (1886) are located on the south side of Gloucester Street, directly east of Yonge Street.
A development application has been submitted for the adjoining properties at 2 and 4 Dundonald Street, 7 and 9 Gloucester Street, and 587, 593-595 and 599 Yonge Street that would result in the removal of all of the existing buildings on the site apart from the pair of row houses at 7 and 9 Gloucester Street. The attached row house at 11 Gloucester Street is not part of the development site."
"This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 7-11 Gloucester Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The trio of row houses (1886) are located on the south side of Gloucester Street, directly east of Yonge Street.
A development application has been submitted for the adjoining properties at 2 and 4 Dundonald Street, 7 and 9 Gloucester Street, and 587, 593-595 and 599 Yonge Street that would result in the removal of all of the existing buildings on the site apart from the pair of row houses at 7 and 9 Gloucester Street. The attached row house at 11 Gloucester Street is not part of the development site."
fedplanner
Active Member
The owner of the site(/developer?) is an unknown quantity. Almost comically so. The architect, however, is about as good as you can get, so here's hoping…
It's fun to see the building take the 75° angular plane so literally higher up. While the lower floors don't look like too much out of the ordinary, being that this is Hariri Pontarini, it could all turn out to be quite the looker.
42
am29
Active Member
Almost 260m with a unique design, looks quite promising! When can we expect renders?
Ramako
Moderator
It's 148 metres. The figure you quoted is height from sea level. Note that in the application that the ground is listed as being 110 metres high.
Whenever the developer decides to release them in preparation for marketing or whenever they get leaked. So basically, any time between tomorrow and never.
Impossible to tell really, unless someone has some inside info regarding who Stancorp will be partnering with. (I can't believe they won't partner with an established developer. They'll need someone big to run this show.)
42
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Also interesting is that the OMB report lists both 44 and 49 storeys as the total number of storeys. I'd still assume it's the former though...
androiduk
Senior Member
Talked to one of the store owners near Yonge & Gloucester and she said they don't have a specific move out date because the developer is apparently trying to wrangle more height out of the city. She also said they were told they would get no more than 2 months notice to vacate when necessary.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Ten more floors at this location wouldnt hurt
androiduk
Senior Member
Soil testers on site.
Uptowner
Active Member
Any good news on this front or does oppression still reign?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
To what are you referring? That a developer is asking for more height, or that the city is, in some way, oppressive?
wolfewood
Active Member
If I remember correctly, this guy got into a long argument about the city being oppressive and unfair because it wouldn't approve one of the Casa clones at 65 stories or so. That argument ended when i42 pointed out that there is so much developable land in the city that 5-10 extra stories on a building is purely aesthetic and has no real difference on the number of units available, nor is it indicative of a city government dastardly trying to deny the free market the ability to build whatever it wants. But apparently it's far easier to just whine and moan about the oppressive city not letting us have "muh soopertalls."
Uptowner
Active Member
I was referring to restricting heights in downtown locations such as this one and how arbitrary it turns out to be. There was an earlier discussion on the topic with people on both sides considering the merits and demerits of limiting building heights downtown. It seems these days we have the need to play this game of letting developments set progressive height precedents for the immediate area and then let each new precedent get surpassed. Many here believe that given the limited potential for outward expansion of the downtown area we should start building up as high as developers can right now.
Although UT is great for discussion, threads can quickly degenerate with people arguing in bad faith. According to one line of thinking that seems to have numerous subscribers here, anyone who wants to go higher has had their thinking polluted with visions of "super tall" buildings dotted all around. In such discussions "super tall" only seems to get mentioned by those thinking it is a clever way to slander the anti-height restriction advocates. In this case, many believe this site easily warrants 10-20 more storeys if the developer can manage it. If not, then they should build what economics allow. Wanting to raise building quality standards or dictate such things as whether a greater proportion of units must be multi-bedroom is another issue which is perfectly legitimate for the City to wade into. The point is we should be fair and not limit the number of citizens who have the opportunity to live downtown.