So its difficult, doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Most things that are worthwhile are difficult. We have become obsessed with height and lost interest in the street level design. Yorkville has a unique character and there is every good reason to want to expand that into adjacent developments.
Click to expand...

Selectively quoting my first sentence when I laid out exactly why it wouldn't be a good idea isn't exactly addressing the issue. This part of "Yorkville" has no unique character of the type you're referring to, and the wisdom of any attempt to extend that non-existent character given the amount of irrevocable alterations is questionable, and raises issues around authenticity and economic feasibility. Why is it such a bad thing to create a new character and insist on high quality in street level design that doesn't merely attempt to replicate what's already lost?

Why not raise the bar, ensure the developer becomes creative and create something that's more attractive and in keeping with the yorkville theme. This can include a parking structure and anything else you want. The problem is we keep giving in to developers who would rather just built square, non-descript space.
Click to expand...

How did we know that a) this product won't be attractive, either a) by itself and/or b) in conjunction of potential redevelopment in the area? And what exactly is the "Yorkville Theme" anyways? As it exist right now, pretty much all of the new developments in Yorkville proper are rectilinear, non-descript space, albeit clad with brick or stone while having little bearing to the original built form. That's creative, original and in-keeping with the "Yorkville Theme"? If you want to sustain that, lobby against redevelopment projects in Yorkville proper instead (and there are a few of those in the pipeline) because frankly it poses a far greater threat to what already exist.

AoD
 
Last edited:
already in my model:

1-4.jpg
 
There are higher quality renderings in the dataBase listing for this proposal now - less jaggy, that's all - but they do show the podium a little more clearly. Although I believe that what we are looking at is still quite preliminary, you can see the proposed reflective multi-angled facade a little more clearly in them.

42
 
The city doesn't seem to be in favour of this proposal after reading the minutes of the meeting. It exceeds density guidelines for one thing. Why would a developer buy land with the idea of a proposal that is obviously not going to get favourable reviews from the city? Maybe the idea wasn't for a 69 and 55 story complex in the first place. It could turn out to be something much smaller so the school and playground don't get a shadow.
 
bmiller said:
The city doesn't seem to be in favour of this proposal after reading the minutes of the meeting. It exceeds density guidelines for one thing. Why would a developer buy land with the idea of a proposal that is obviously not going to get favourable reviews from the city? Maybe the idea wasn't for a 69 and 55 story complex in the first place. It could turn out to be something much smaller so the school and playground don't get a shadow.
Click to expand...

Developers are always asking for more density and height than permitted in the existing zoning bylaw. It's rare for any large project to not apply for increases. They don't necessarily expect to get this exact floor count approved, but they'll be shooting for something very close to this. What they get will depend partly upon how neighbours react, partly upon how the complex will affect its surroundings based on several studies that the city requires, and upon what the developers are willing to give back to the city in the form of local improvements. You will find that the story is the same in 98% of the threads in this forum.

42
 
bmiller said:
The city doesn't seem to be in favour of this proposal after reading the minutes of the meeting. It exceeds density guidelines for one thing. Why would a developer buy land with the idea of a proposal that is obviously not going to get favourable reviews from the city? Maybe the idea wasn't for a 69 and 55 story complex in the first place. It could turn out to be something much smaller so the school and playground don't get a shadow.
Click to expand...

Almost every tower that has gone up in the city over the last ten years has "exceeded density guidelines" and raised concerns about height and shadowing. That's pretty much par for the course owing to the fact that all the city's planning guidelines are horrendously anachronistic. The city uses this as a way to extract concessions from developers.
 
http://ward27news.ca


October 29 – 50 Bloor and 37 Yorkville Community Consultation
This is a public consultation for the sites 50 Bloor and 37 Yorkville.

When: 6:30-9:30pm

Where: Stone Church – 45 Davenport Road
 
There are aspects of these that I like, but the tops of the towers look pretty bad to me.
 
What looks better? The current Wallman proposal or the one HP had initial conceptual plans for?

HP's Conceptual Drawings

2m3fbzs.jpg


w20tg7.jpg


w7yhz7.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top