Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
M5V Condominiums 
375 King Street West, Toronto
Developer: Lifetime Developments, TAS

M5V Condominiums | 119m | 35s | Lifetime | Core Architects

Discussion in 'Buildings' started by AlvinofDiaspar, Sep 6, 2006.

  1. Refusal Report, from Downtown East York Community Council:

    Couldn't find out if there is an official thread for this project - if so, please merge this post.


  2. alklay

    alklay Guest

    They really do not like this project and based on the report, there are some pretty good reasons to reject it. Its a shame as the building, in a proper location for its height and form, is a nice design.
  3. Mike in TO

    Mike in TO Guest

    I would expect this to go to the OMB.

    Given the increasing densities along King and Queen as well as the waterfront I wonder when there will be serious talk about potentially upgrading transit. I would imagine a subway would have a fairly high ridership almost instantly.
  4. Ed007Toronto

    Ed007Toronto Guest

    As more and more people move into these areas I'm sure calls for better transit will increase. There's going to be a lot of voters in these areas that will be sick and tired of taking the slow and overburdened King and Queen streetcars.
  5. bizorky

    bizorky Guest

    Although calling for cancellation of a project on the basis of slow transit is counter productive (not that they are doing this). Increasing density is the perfect argument for demanding better transit - particularly in that part of town.

    As to the cancellation, it would appear that the city is trying to stick with the King-Spadina plan with respect to building height and step-backs for sunlight. However, as this project is east of Spadina and just down the road from the TIFF condo, I am wondering if the developer can challenge this rejection with some success?
  6. boiler2000

    boiler2000 Guest

    ^ One difference is that TIFF doesn't cast shadows onto King.
  7. bizorky

    bizorky Guest

    ^But I presume it will cast a shadow.
  8. boiler2000

    boiler2000 Guest

    Sure, but I remember that the Dec 2005 King-Spadina charette specifically referred to the "sunny" (north) side of the street, and suggested that this sunlight be preserved.
  9. jayomatic

    jayomatic Guest

    I'm not sold on every single condo development being 34 stories. They could easily have made this condo about 20 stories to match the hudson and it would still look great.
  10. bizorky

    bizorky Guest

    I don't think it would make it to 20 storeys either under the existing plan. Enforcing plan restriction west of Spadina makes sense as there is no significant high rise development there. East of Spadina is a different matter. It will be interesting to see what happens.
  11. Mike in TO

    Mike in TO Guest

    It may look great at 20s, but economically it may make little sense - as the area becomes more desirable, land values increase and the feasibility of projects will vary depending on density allocations and price per square foot of the units.
  12. joel in TO

    joel in TO Guest

    I wonder what the developer will do now - especially given that their sales center on king is already half built... seems like an omb fight is inevitable.
  13. boiler2000

    boiler2000 Guest

    Right across the street, the Victory will be about 35 storeys... Seems to me like our planners are a bit confused.
  14. Citywriter

    Citywriter Guest

    Actually, in the report is a very clear rationale for why the north side is different from the south. Partly to do with sun, which makes sense, but also with "the historic main street character on the south side" (or something to that effect). There are smaller lots remaining there with smaller businesses in them -- like the Mexican restaurant that will fall for M5V, and the whole strip opposite Festival Centre.
  15. Mike in TO

    Mike in TO Guest

    The planning report states "The application has been
    appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board."

Share This Page