Toronto Ïce Condominiums at York Centre | 234.07m | 67s | Lanterra | a—A

p5connex said:
I don't follow the umlaut over the "I"? In Swedish, this happens over an "O" or "A" sometimes, but an I? Even in German this is a load of horseshit..I hate marketing and their quest to makes things cool or hip/different. Its just like using the term uber (I omitted the umlaut), as in "that is uber cool..!

p5
Click to expand...


It's Condoporn.
 
For those interested in such things there's a community consultation meeting for this project next Wednesday at 7 at Metro Hall (55 John), room 310. My only issue with this project is the part about how the developer wants to build the condos first and leave the office tower for later...we've seen that before. If the city is going to cave and allow residential on these "employment lands" they should at least get some guarantees that the office tower will actually be built. Otherwise I like this project, although it's too bad the office tower isn't taller.
 
k.w.l. said:
My only issue with this project is the part about how the developer wants to build the condos first and leave the office tower for later...we've seen that before. If the city is going to cave and allow residential on these "employment lands" they should at least get some guarantees that the office tower will actually be built. Otherwise I like this project, although it's too bad the office tower isn't taller.
Click to expand...
What's wrong with the developer wanting to build the condos first? With several huge office developments expected to be completed within the next 1-2 years, it doesn't take a genius to predict that demand for office space will immediately plummet. The city has no business forcing this developer into bankruptcy with harebrained demands like that. Condos are practically guaranteed cash cows by comparison. Which would YOU build first?
 
k.w.l. said:
For those interested in such things there's a community consultation meeting for this project next Wednesday at 7 at Metro Hall (55 John), room 310. My only issue with this project is the part about how the developer wants to build the condos first and leave the office tower for later...we've seen that before. If the city is going to cave and allow residential on these "employment lands" they should at least get some guarantees that the office tower will actually be built. Otherwise I like this project, although it's too bad the office tower isn't taller.
Click to expand...

To achieve this taller office tower the demand would need to be greater so your argument is contradictory. Although I do see what you are getting at. This is honestly a case where the city needs to be somewhat strict about the planning set aside a certain percentage of the land that can be delegate to residential properties and rest for offices. If this condo doesn't fit in with that reject it ... as simple as that. Yes we should have mixed development but to the extent that exceptions keep on being made that mixed slowly but surely turns into all residential.
 
Another public space here? Isn't there a public space next door at Maple Leaf Place or Square or whatever it is?
 
taal said:
is honestly a case where the city needs to be somewhat strict about the planning set aside a certain percentage of the land that can be delegate to residential properties and rest for offices. If this condo doesn't fit in with that reject it ... as simple as that. Yes we should have mixed development but to the extent that exceptions keep on being made that mixed slowly but surely turns into all residential.
Click to expand...
Exactly. The developer knew the land was zoned commercial when it was purchased, they shouldn't be allowed to build anything they want. The city is being very accomodating by allowing residential on the site at all, it is not unreasonable to take steps to ensure that the commercial component is protected. I just don't want to see a repeat of the WTC project where the offices are forgotten about a few years later and replaced with more residential.
 
I doubt there is much public space at MLS as the two towers are on a rather bulky podium. The public space referred to here is simply the otherwise empty space between the towers which is planned to be fully landscaped and covered by a 'swiss cheese' patterned roof. I think most people seemd to like the drawings seen a few pages back. What's wrong with public space anyway?

If you havent seen it, here's a model of the site layout (showing only the bases of the proposed buildings)

2417419473_ca27bed568_o.jpg
 
k.w.l. said:
Exactly. The developer knew the land was zoned commercial when it was purchased, they shouldn't be allowed to build anything they want. The city is being very accomodating by allowing residential on the site at all, it is not unreasonable to take steps to ensure that the commercial component is protected. I just don't want to see a repeat of the WTC project where the offices are forgotten about a few years later and replaced with more residential.
Click to expand...

Is the argument that the city planning dept has no backbone, or that we're running out of room for office space (false, btw)?
 
What's wrong with more public space? Not every square inch of street frontage makes for a good retail strip, so who on earth would prefer the street level be consumed by a huge one-storey gated amenities complex (and yes, that is practically the only option in condo zones) instead of public space?
 
^The sidewalk and road are public space, duh!

I hate this suburban notion that everywhere needs "public space." I often wonder why people associated with the "public spacing committee" exist? I think it's because they grew up in the 'burbs and as a result, feel entitled to large open "public" spaces. I'm sick of this mentality! I want intimate public space--aka sidewalks filled with life!
 
There isn't much that kills streetlife faster than one storey gated amenities complexes, especially on roads that will see almost zero pedestrians, like Grand Trunk Crescent. A one storey podium filled with dry cleaners isn't much better for streetlife and probably makes for an even drearier experience. The swiss cheese roof-covered space is pretty much guaranteed to be more engaging than whatever realistic similarly one-storey alternatives exist.
 
The discussion about the siteplan and public space sounds eerily similar to that other Clewes-designed development at Yonge and Queen's Quay.

Public space? Mixed use? The horror!
 
myxamatosis said:
I saw the billboard as well. I came across http://icecondostoronto.com/ which
seems like it's the official site for the condo but it's so incredibly amateurish
that I can't believe it's the actual site. The site is close to york and bremner
and brokers are offering vip previews on various sites for two towers of
55 and 65 stories respectively. Clewes is the designer/architect and is going
with a "Scandinavian" theme.
Click to expand...


The official website is actually: http://www.icecondos.com
All those other ones are sneaky agents and brokers trying to get your information... If I was the builder I would black list them all... that'll teach them :)
 
urbandreamer said:
^The sidewalk and road are public space, duh!

I hate this suburban notion that everywhere needs "public space." I often wonder why people associated with the "public spacing committee" exist? I think it's because they grew up in the 'burbs and as a result, feel entitled to large open "public" spaces. I'm sick of this mentality! I want intimate public space--aka sidewalks filled with life!
Click to expand...

sidewalks arent enough in this area. there are 20,000 people walking around here nearly daily during some parts of the year. they need places to congregate
 
ShonTron said:
The discussion about the siteplan and public space sounds eerily similar to that other Clewes-designed development at Yonge and Queen's Quay.

Public space? Mixed use? The horror!
Click to expand...

At least that thread isn't filled with nauseating 'it's Queen Street or the suburbs'-type comments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top