Okay. One last thing. Go look at mtlurb.com. They have stickied all pertinent info on the top of every page rather than cramming it all in the title.
 
maestro said:
Okay. One last thing. Go look at mtlurb.com. They have stickied all pertinent info on the top of every page rather than cramming it all in the title.
Click to expand...

Thanks!
 
maestro said:
Okay. One last thing. Go look at mtlurb.com. They have stickied all pertinent info on the top of every page rather than cramming it all in the title.
Click to expand...
There's normally a dataBase file you can click on to get the pertinent info here too.

42
 
I absolutely agree please show both height in metres and number of stories. Height in metres only leaves the less experienced out as 250m won't mean anything to them whereas the number of stories will give them a quick idea that the tower is taller or shorter than other similar towers.
 
Big Daddy said:
I absolutely agree please show both height in metres and number of stories. Height in metres only leaves the less experienced out as 250m won't mean anything to them whereas the number of stories will give them a quick idea that the tower is taller or shorter than other similar towers.
Click to expand...

I'm just guessing here, but I think some readers may be able to get the idea that a 250m tower is taller than, say, a 200m one, even without number of storeys.

But I think the mods have got the message about wanting storeys in the title. Now, is there any news about the building?
 
OK let's talk about how the developer should be lined up against the wall and shot.

Developers should not be able to tear down buildings and leave gapping holes in the urban fabric {especially at what is arguable the city's most important corner} when the building hasn't even cleared the review process and could be refused by the city or OMB.

It could take years for construction to start and that assumes it will even go ahead if approved. Just when the hole opposite it get filled in another takes its place. Until it gets total approval and shovels are in the ground they should not be able to ruin a corner and streetscape particularly such an important one.

The developer can say "all we are waiting for is approval" and we all know that means squat. If the company has financial difficulties of we get another financial crisis, with the money they paid for this lot if could sit empty for a decade till something rises. They should be given a 2 or 3 month grace period to start construction and after that the city should be charging some EXTREMELY monthly heavy fines for their destruction of the streetscape.
 
I don't know about "shot" but I agree with the gist of what you're saying. It does seem premature, especially on development this risky.
 
No one likes seeing a hole in the ground for longer than necessary, but the quicker these buildings come down the faster something can go back up. Also aren't we used to seeing pits, hoarding and construction everywhere in this city? I don't really find this any worse than any other fenced off site around the city.
 
Given the debate on preserving second-rate structures like Stollery's spurred in this thread, and the reaction of like-minded urbanists and politicians like Krystin Wong-Tam in general, I really can't blame the actions of developers like Mizrahi for doing what he did.

The absolute worst outcome that could have happened to this site would have been some kind of Frankenstein facadectomy involving Stollery-as-podium solution.
 
I think the point is that it could stay up and provide something to the streetscape and remain untouched until necessary. The fear is that this will remain vacant land for many years until construction starts, given this doesn't have either approvals or marketing/sales. It is possible it could be another Yonge and Dundas hoarding situation. Sure, we are used to construction hoarding, but no one wants a vacant corner at Yonge and Bloor for years, do we?
 
There are decades of evidence that proves" the quicker buildings come down, the faster new ones can go up" is a bunch of hooey. In the case here, the developer is a good 12 to 18 months from being allowed to build this tower or something similar to it. What's the rush? Soil testing doesn't years to analyse. That said, they are within their rights to block bust now unlike when they first started on Stollery's which was criminal.
 
Urban-Affair said:
I think the point is that it could stay up and provide something to the streetscape and remain untouched until necessary. The fear is that this will remain vacant land for many years until construction starts, given this doesn't have either approvals or marketing/sales. It is possible it could be another Yonge and Dundas hoarding situation. Sure, we are used to construction hoarding, but no one wants a vacant corner at Yonge and Bloor for years, do we?
Click to expand...
Why should they bear the taxes, and cost of insuring and maintaining buildings they are going to tear down anyway, just to maintain some Potemkin streetscape?
 
I understand your point although I wouldn't call most of what was present Potemkin, and I am not as sympathetic to developers either. Even though the architecture was not the best, it wasn't horrific and I think it should be the duty of owners of property to have a little pride and consideration for the context when they buy highly visible and highly . It isn't like they wouldn't have made coin if they left the improvements up. It is quite possible the rents obtainable here could have been amongst the highest in the city temporarily until the new development was approved and sales/marketing occurred. Yes, they wanted the VL MT or CT rate, but more than that they wanted to bypass the city's objections of demolishing, at least that's what I saw happening.

On another level, I wonder if Mizrahi has his ducks in a row. He paid an insanely high amount for this very risky assembly. These units are going to have to be NYC 5th Ave level prices if he is to make this financially feasible if you ask me. Either that, or charge an insane amount for the retail downstairs, or both. He may get approval, but the market may crash or fluctuate, and luxury units tend to be the first to be affected by that. If he fails, we are left with a (another) blight that could have easily been avoided.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top