Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox

If anyone has seen the current New Condo Guide, you'll have seen the iconic YSL logo of Yves St-Laurent being employed in silver on the cover, and a tease that there will be more info coming soon on this "iconic" new address. 385 Yonge would be it.

Cresford is combining their fashion branding from the Casa buildings with the name of the building here. Yonge Street Living I presume?

42
 
I am really looking forward to this one. It will make a huge impact both on the street scape (which needs some help here) and the sky line.

This still has not been approved has it? Seems like it's been awhile now.
 
Nope, just the preliminary report and planning rationale that were provided around April/May of last year. Though I'm curious to see if the rezoning will get approved this coming April, much like The One is hoping for approval at that time.
 
Prelim report says a final report is expected in the first quarter of 2016. That said, this thing has a lot of issues with it, and I expect it to be revised significantly before it is approved.

- Consistency with the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
- Conformity with Official Plan policies particularly with respect to built form, setbacks and shadowing of nearby Neighbouroods and Parks designated lands, impacts on heritage listed properties;
- Confirmation as to whether an Official Plan Amendment to Site and Area Specific Policy 174 is required to address issues of height and massing;
- Conformity with Site and Area Specific Policy 174, particularly with respect to the existing character and built form of Yonge Steet as a pedestrian and retail oriented area;
- Conformity with the city-wide Tall Buildings Design Guidelines and the Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines, including the sections on transition in scale, tower floorplate and separation distances, step backs and pedestrian realm;
- Confirmation that the building height does not interfere with the Hospital for Sick Kids and St. Michael's Hospital helicopter flight paths;
- Podium compatibility and relationship to both adjacent properties and to heritage listed buildings that would be incorporated into the development;
- Treatment of the ground floor of the building and its relationship to the streetscape, the width of the sidewalk and the provision of continuous pedestrian realm and weather protection including assessment for a potential PATH connection;
- Appropriateness of the proposed reduced on-site parking provision;
- Assessment of traffic generation, proposed driveway locations and impacts on O'Keefe Lane;
- Adequacy of the proposed amenity space and more specifically the reduced provision for outdoor amenity space;
- Appropriate servicing to accommodate the development; - Confirmation that there are less than 6 rental housing units and that the City's Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion By-law does not apply;
- The impact on the existing rooming house;
- Adequacy of community services and parkland in the area including the impact on Yonge Street Mission; and
- Identification and securing of public benefits pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act should the proposal be recommended for approval.
 
99% of preliminary reports lay out a raft of issues that the City will be studying between writing the preliminary and the final reports. No doubt, however, owing to the bold plan here, there's more to consider than with typical buildings. Planning here tends to push for one typology these days—the point tower rising from the podium—again and again, and what we have here is two of those, it's just that they're joined by a bridge. Here's hoping that the bridge is not a step too far for the powers that be, and that the basic concept of the development survives, (and in fact, while I'm not certain of all of the technical details and impacts of the proposal, I'd be happy to see the exterior expression survive the planning process as is).

Like I've said though, most of what has been listed above is written up as a concern on the bulk of the larger applications that come forward. Some of the points noted above, meanwhile, are already taken care of—for example, not related to the architecture of the proposal in any way was the impact on the Yonge Street Mission; that organization has already announced their move to Spadina Avenue—while in regards to Section 37 benefits, those are always negotiated after everything else has been worked out.

42
 
It's a little more than just two point towers on a podium connected by a bridge. The tower distances suggests a form closer to a slab with its middle cut out. Serious consideration should be given towards the current proposal representing an overbuilding of the site. Planning in this city is far too loose when it comes to FSI on an individual basis and on a neighbourhood level. We have narrow streets with long blocks.
 
And they did shadow studies of the ryerson grounds. The space between the towers made a significant increase in afternoon sun if I remember correctly. Aura is taller, and this would have a positive impact on the street and offers office and retail.

I don't see any negatives here
 
heights not the issue for me with this. It just looks like its an overdevelopment of the site. I would prefer a single, larger (and taller) tower to these twins, it would fit on the site much better.
 
innsertnamehere said:
heights not the issue for me with this. It just looks like its an overdevelopment of the site. I would prefer a single, larger (and taller) tower to these twins, it would fit on the site much better.
Click to expand...
This is a very expensive project and the developers are probably looking at 2 towers to cut it, could they really go ahead with just one tower without cheapening it??..or let alone, making a profit??
 
With 25 metres between the towers, which is what the City sets out in its tall buildings design guidelines, there's no reason for the developer to plan only one tower on the site.

The particularly expensive bit here is the bridge. It's the complicating factor with shadows and stepbacks, but it's also the standout feature of the design on the skyline. I would hate to lose it to timidity on anyone's part.

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hahaha, many here are negative about the height,
........i cant see this or even the Chelsea development getting shot down because of height when you have the 280 meter Aura next door
Click to expand...


Typical. You confuse a possible over development/FSI for the site as meaning height.
 
interchange42 said:
With 25 metres between the towers, which is what the City sets out in its tall buildings design guidelines, there's no reason for the developer to plan only one tower on the site.

The particularly expensive bit here is the bridge. It's the complicating factor with shadows and stepbacks, but it's also the standout feature of the design on the skyline. I would hate to lose it to timidity on anyone's part.

42
Click to expand...

I'm not saying this is an overdevelopment of the site. I don't have the information. The proposed FAR does need to be thoroughly research at 28 FAR. Sure the 25 metres tower distances, the tower setbacks may meet the minimum requirement but, these aren't 30 storey towers either. It will be hopefully scrutinized.

I was also pondering. Imagine if Toronto was like any other city. The developer would have to buy out the rest of the block to lower the FAR. In turn, we'd probably see the corner retail building fully restored instead of facadectomized. With the spare density used on the tower.
 
From the RealNet ad in today's Globe & Mail, the properties at 363 - 379, 381, and 385 - 391 Yonge Street have been sold - probably into the project specific legal entity owned by the partners, in anticipation of the future start of construction, a total of .92 acres for a price of $157,500,000.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top