Toronto 110 Adelaide Street East | 226m | 66s | Stafford | Arcadis

christiesplits said:
Chuckled at this post from 2020.
Click to expand...

He was, of course, correct.

But when has insanity stopped many a Toronto builder? LOL

No record of any CMC meetings having taken place or scheduled since February.
 
DSCToronto said:
The project is being mediated, I understand there was a session last week.
Click to expand...

- No Breathing in the greater St. Lawrence area w/o having DSC monitoring! :)

Good to see you diligently overseeing your fiefdom.
 
Council has endorsed a settlement proposal here with the following stat changes:
  • Storeys increased from 65 to 66
  • Height increased from 217.6 to 226m
  • Total residential units decreased from 600 to 555 (w/ unit mix redistribution)
  • Bike parking down from 670 to 621
  • 2nd underground level added
  • Minor GFA redistribution
Updated elevations & podium rendering:
19.jpg
18.jpg
20.jpg

Updated South elevation:
93.jpg


OLT hearing scheduled to commence on March 16, 2026
 
Tuscani01 said:
To be honest, I preferred the original podium. This looks terrible. Reminds me of a suburban Smart Centres plaza.
Click to expand...

This part (bolded) we're 100% in agreement on.

But the original also stunk the joint out.

There's just no attempt to play nice with the rest of the row of buildings here. (and its bad in its own right too)
 
Strange Advance said:
I don't mind the overall design at all, which seems an unpopular opinion. The previous design was a knockoff of 1BE, which was itself derived from others.

But I don't understand: If Council has endorsed a settlement, why is the OLT involved?
Click to expand...

The OLT process is already underway, because the developer appealed.

A settlement reached between the City and the proponent doesn't automatically make the appeal go away.

What happens is that the joint settlement is then proposed to the OLT at the hearing as the preferred and agreed outcome, and overwhelmingly the OLT accepts that.

I'm hard pressed off the top of my head to think of the OLT rejecting a settlement, but it is, theoretically, within their statutory powers.

I will summon the archival memory of @ProjectEnd as to whether the OLT has rejected any settlements and why.
 
Northern Light said:
The OLT process is already underway, because the developer appealed.

A settlement reached between the City and the proponent doesn't automatically make the appeal go away.

What happens is that the joint settlement is then proposed to the OLT at the hearing as the preferred and agreed outcome, and overwhelmingly the OLT accepts that.

I'm hard pressed off the top of my head to think of the OLT rejecting a settlement, but it is, theoretically, within their statutory powers.

I will summon the archival memory of @ProjectEnd as to whether the OLT has rejected any settlements and why.
Click to expand...
There would have to be an error in law or some other administrative fault for this to happen.

Think of it as two kids get in a schoolyard fight (City and Developer), then one of them goes to the parent / teacher / principal (OLT) to adjudicate. It's in the latter party's best interest to resolve the issue to the satisfaction of both kids, so if they themselves come up with something on which they both agree, the administrator is extremely likely to accept it. The only way they shouldn't / couldn't / wouldn't is if one of the kids has been manipulated by the other into accepting something that's clearly not in their best (or at least fair) interest. Hence, the OLT accepts pretty much all settlements because neither party is going to slip up and make an error that could cause one to 'win' at the other's expense. Further, if both parties come to an agreement and it is refused by the OLT, that's the quickest way to divisional court where they'd both likely pursue a charge of malfeasance against the member.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top