Kind of looks like Montage in cityplace.
Printable View
Kind of looks like Montage in cityplace.
Preliminary Report from the Nov 2 TEYCC Meeting:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-41592.pdf
AoD
It will be a rental building... RAW Design; owner: Toronto College Park Ltd.
Yeah, at 149 meters in the area... this should have no problem on approvals, start-up could proceed soon after.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bayer
Hey, did HSC get a variance in height... the 25-storey Hospital for Sick Children research building, under construction.
Rental? Sweet! That means they could start construction right away as opposed to waiting through a sales/financing period like for a condo project. :)
Great addition.
Rental is great, design could be interesting.....
BUT...no retail????
That will not do, I don't want a building facing Bay and Gerrard w/something street-deadening at grade.
The planners have some other issues as well, including view-corridor.
Including Bixi spaces is interesting.....
The city documented mentioned retail at grade at least 4 times in the first 2 pages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Light
The elevations are showing some positive evolution since that first one was released. Could be a pretty fun addition to the skyline. I'm looking forward to the renderings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filip
My Bad.... :o
I was looking at the 'Issues to be Resolved' section and it mentioned 'no commercial space'
I wasn't realizing they meant office as opposed to retail.
****
Though, if I'm reading it properly now (hopefully) ....I get 6,000sqft retail roughly.
Is this site smaller than I remember, or is that a reasonable number?
I wouldn't be too quick to suggest that this building will fly through the approvals process. There are MANY outstanding issues which the City is going to want to discuss.
Understandably, but why is someone with 'make no small plans' as their signature he/she who reiterates this?
Good question, ProjectEnd. I will respond with another question for you. Where, in that quote, do you see anything written about accepting development for the sake of development, regardless of the potential negative impacts on the existing built environment and residential population with respect to access to sky views, sunlight penetration, wind conditions, micro-climate conditions, etc? What about respect for the established policy context or the established planning and design framework which establishes clear directions for tower design which this proposal does not adequately attempt to conform to? Are these policy documents, performance standards, design guidelines, and other recommendations NOT the "big plans" that we seek to create? That, sir, is why I reiterate it.
I believe this may be upscale student housing, aimed at the Ryerson and UofT crowd.
boom!Quote:
Originally Posted by skorji