ThomasJ said:
excavation should be shorter for a small site. yes, the build will be trickier due to the constrained site but not the excavation.
Click to expand...

How much equipment could be put 'in the hole' at any one time without it interfering with each other on this site? Secondly, the elongated nature of the property means that, relatively speaking, more shoring, tie backs and retaining wall construction would be required than for a square site.
 
As much as I hate the comparison... Excavating/building in small lots like this is very.. Manhattanesque.

It shows that there aren't many block sized surface lots left to develop, so we're starting to develop the really small minor lots beside historic venues. It's a good direction that the city is going. That and this design is an interesting one that would grab attention of people on King Street and in the square in front of Metro Hall, even Wellington on the other side of the square.
 
The_Architect said:
As much as I hate the comparison... Excavating/building in small lots like this is very.. Manhattanesque.

It shows that there aren't many block sized surface lots left to develop, so we're starting to develop the really small minor lots beside historic venues. It's a good direction that the city is going. That and this design is an interesting one that would grab attention of people on King Street and in the square in front of Metro Hall, even Wellington on the other side of the square.
Click to expand...

i wonder what is the smallest or narrowest lot that has been developed in TO for a high-rise so far?
 
From 2 weeks ago.

tpm18.jpg
 
Pic taken May 2, 2012


C1Kks.jpg
 
Gee, Brad Lamb doesnt think much of the Torono Planning Dept..

It’s way worse. I’ll say that this city is a nightmare to develop in. It’s a fist fight and it’s very unpleasant; it makes you not want to do it, and many talented people are sick of it.

I would fire the entire planning department. Because there has to be a change in how they see things. It’s just a nitpicking, constant battle for mediocre buildings. They have people working in the planning department… and maybe it comes from above, or it’s just endemic in the system, but I think we need to get fresh ideas. The buildings that they don't fight about … [sighs].

Theatre Park
This would never have been built unless Adam Vaughan personally steered it through the system, because he saw merit in this project. It’s a crazy building that I think people are going to enjoy for years to come, versus what they wanted us to build which is a 10-storey or maybe 16-storey block-to-block skinny-fat building with a podium. No park--they didn't even like the park: the planning department actually tried to get us to take the park out.
The Interview: Brad Lamb Part 2...UT DataBase.......http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/06/interview-brad-lamb-part-2
 
Is he saying that you can't have a superlative building within restrictive planning rules? Well, Berlin managed that quite a few times by proponents hiring superb architects...and they didn't have to do with a) a tower and b) a park necessarily.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Brad Lamb is a developer, thus his views on our planning department are no surprise.

As for this site.... holy crap is it ever narrow! Wow.
 
Lamb did go to the OMB and got what he wanted. I guess it's unfortunate for him that planning departments don't exist to suit his needs, but that's life I suppose.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top