Toronto Concord Canada House | 231.97m | 74s | Concord Adex | Arcadis

grey said:
Yeah, we've known all that stuff for more than a year now.
Click to expand...

2596531206_c7b8246f0a_o.jpg
 
Ya the height thing means nothing. If you look at the other ones, they also look about as tall as Brookfield Place, which we know they are nowhere near as tall.

Also, I think once Parade is finished with it's main marketing, we'll see Signature.
So I'm thinking Fall or Winter?
 
CityPlace: Signature Tower

Does anybody heard that signature tower the final project of cityplace will be downgraded 59 floor instead of 69, this is about a rumour that someone heard from sells office.
 
ahmedyusali said:
Does anybody heard that signature tower the final project of cityplace will be downgraded 59 floor instead of 69, this is about a rumour that someone heard from sells office.
Click to expand...

That would be a wasted operatunity,i doubt that they would build their anchor building just 25-30 meters taller than a couple of the other ones around it.This project has sold well and people all over are waiting for the rendering and sales of probably the last of aprox 20 buildings of this project.
The sales people are probably the last to know of whats being proposed.You know the old saying you cant believe a word they say.Lets just sit back for the ride,cause this one is going to happen soon.
 
Shortening it to 59 is probably because they have exceeded their permitted density on other buildings. They probably didn't expect to build as many 1-bdr units when they initially went through the rezoning process. Unless they plan on having a whole bunch of 2 and 3 bedroom units in Signature (though, Adam Vaughan would want that) then they would have to rezone again to permit additional number of units. Consider it a victim of its own success. So many people have bought into CityPlace that it's come back to bite them.
 
Not sure if this rumour is true or just more of the same stuff we've been hearing all week about the doom and gloom of other big-ticket projects.

But Marcus makes some interesting points about density. Perhaps Concord Adex will go back to the city and request an amendment to allow them more density. This site will complete the Spadina strip and is adjecent to higher-order transit. Of all the sites at City Place, this is perhaps the most in need of density.
 
I think there is a good posibility the Concord may in fact shorten the signature tower due to too much density built in earlier towers ...

similar thing happened in their Concord Park Place project (North York) whereby in phase 1 'Discovery', orginally Concord intended 5 towers but due to over-utilization of density, it had to take out one of of the towers (Building C) and replace with townhouses in order to build within overall density permissions
 
All along CityPlace have gone with the masterplan exept maybe for Panarama which they squeezed between the Gardiner and Lakeshore,they have also co-operated with the city on building the future subsidized portion by Bathurst,they are going ahead with the park and the pedestrian bridge.i think they hold the cards on that Signature location and will build something tall and funky with not much feedback from the city.Remember this city land sat empty with no takers for 20 years waiting for development untill they came along.
 
Automation Gallery said:
All along CityPlace have gone with the masterplan exept maybe for Panarama which they squeezed between the Gardiner and Lakeshore,they have also co-operated with the city on building the future subsidized portion by Bathurst,they are going ahead with the park and the pedestrian bridge.i think they hold the cards on that Signature location and will build something tall and funky with not much feedback from the city.Remember this city land sat empty with no takers for 20 years waiting for development untill they came along.
Click to expand...

The Master Plan is only one part of the process. They might have stuck to the number of planned buildings, location of buildings, transportation ROWs and various other aspects, but it all comes down to the individual Site Plan applications for each phase that determines the actual massing, density, etc. There are people within the City (planners and politicians, especially Adam Vaughan) who are not very happen with how CityPlace was planned on an overall basis, some of which was beyond their control (eg. lack of a design review panel). Concord does not hold all the cards. If they applied to get a rezoning for more density for Signature, I would expect resistance with 300 Front being a prime example of how the City didn't want a 58 (i think) storey building, and ended up being 51. Signature is even further west away from the 'core' than 300 Front with the whole tapered skyline debacle.

They are not building the affordable housing, TCHC is, who will probably issue a RFP to developers to build the market-value units on those blocks (beside Parade to the west). The park and the bridge are community benefits and are part of the section 37 concessions for the allowed increase in height and density.

And remember, the land sat vacant because of various issues such as large cost to purchase, potential environmental cleanup issues, and that same little recession thingy in the late 80s-early 90s. The City's original vision for that land was to be a second commercial/financial district, not a (basically) strictly residential area. The City dropped the ball by allowing this, and not sticking to some of the original plan and have more of a mixed-use area with some office and retail buildings (I don't mean separate big box buildings, but mixed)
 
marcus_a_j said:
If they applied to get a rezoning for more density for Signature, I would expect resistance with 300 Front being a prime example of how the City didn't want a 58 (i think) storey building, and ended up being 51. Signature is even further west away from the 'core' than 300 Front with the whole tapered skyline debacle.
Click to expand...


I dont think that they are going to apply for rezoning.Would you not think that they are already approved for a 62 or is it 69 storey height for that location.From the first day that this development was approved i think that they had decided that this would be the one location for the tallest tower.How is it after building this whole development these rookie new politicians come in with all their negativity.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I dont think that they are going to apply for rezoning.Would you not think that they are already approved for a 62 or is it 69 storey height for that location.From the first day that this development was approved i think that they had decided that this would be the one location for the tallest tower.How is it after building this whole development these rookie new politicians come in with all their negativity.
Click to expand...

Height and density are two separate issues. Sure they might have the zoning for a maximum 69 storey building, but if that is based on an estimated ~ 650 units (for arguments sake) and they only have an allowable 550 units permitted because the other buildings (eg. Matrix, Apex, Optima, HVE, etc.) went over their estimated number of units, then Concord can only build those 550 units unless they rezone again. The height of the building will be based on the size of those permitted units and how many units on each floor. They can have an average of 9.5 units per floor in a 59 storey building, or 8 per floor in a 69 storey building. They might be going with the former because it's cheaper to build a ~30m shorter building with larger floor plates.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top