Toronto East Harbour | 214.2m | 65s | Cadillac Fairview | Adamson

canarob said:
Too bad about the hydro corridor -- it doesn't exactly scream Canary Wharf.
Click to expand...

Agreed, something should be done. It's not so much that they're there, it's that they disrupt key sightlines to downtown (and to East Harbour from downtown). These are important, but hard to quantify their importance. If it was north or south of the site it wouldn't be as big a deal, but where they are now is a problem imo. Another spot where they could arguably be undergrounded is north of the Viaduct, because I believe they block potential for that Brickworks gondala vision. If that's still kicking.
 
Why can't they anchor this new financial area with fewer buildings that are double the height. Creating more breathing space and light between buildings to create a gathering civic or convention area with parks etc for locals and tourist . After all there's going to be a major transit hub right next to it!
 
I think it would be a mistake to characterize this as strictly new financial area. I don't think it's going to be a lot of big bank towers. It's proposed to be a major new business area, period. Which means it's likely meant to play home to a number of large corporate players and a host of smaller, ancillary businesses. As for the suggested building heights, beyond this is all being likely placeholder stuff I'm pretty sure they have good reason to keep within their current approximate projections. A ton of financing, both public and private, has to be in put in place yet - and due to the sheer size of the project, it's going to also be staged/phased in over many years. Add the possibility (remote?) that Amazon's Q2 is coming to Toronto and it's the Lever Ponds site they're said to be interested in... well, let's just say a lot has yet to be finalized just yet. For a project of this size, the city and the province (and possibly the Feds?) have to be all committed. We're still nearer to the beginning than we are anything else.
 
The heights are pretty damn ambitious if you ask me. There three around 200 meters. Double would be 400 meters. Yeah, that's realistic.
 
Looks like the existing Unilever building is going to be re-purposed and built above...I don't think it survived in earlier versions of the proposal.
 
If the reference is to the soap factory, it is being kept, restored, and added to and, in fact, constitutes the first phase.
 
Email update, including notice of next meeting.

Thank you for your interest in the Unilever Precinct Planning Study.

On February 22, 2018, Planning and Growth Management Committee will consider a report from City Planning requesting modifications to Official Plan Amendment No. 231, Site and Area Specific Policy 426 (SASP 426) (which is currently not in force). The proposed modifications would permit additional non-residential land uses that will provide supportive amenities to employment uses within the Precinct, reflective of discussions we have had through the public consultation process to date on the Precinct Plan. You can view the agenda and City Planning's report at: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.PG27.3.

We are also preparing for our next consultation meeting on the Precinct Planning Study and First Gulf's East Harbour applications, scheduled for March 21, 2018 at Queen Alexandra Middle School. Doors will open at 6:15pm and presentations will begin at 6:30pm. We'll send additional details closer to the date, but we have coordinated with the SmartTrack project team and they will also be holding a meeting at the same facility on March 21. We will sequence presentations such that interested community members can attend both, should they wish.
 
Nevermind the switch from the OMA master plan - it is interesting how the parkland component have gotten smaller and smaller than before even in the US/Adamson proposal - from the city's slidedeck:

upload_2018-2-21_10-44-48.png


All that while the ask for floorspace is increasing. I think they are starting to push it.

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-2-21_10-44-48.png
    upload_2018-2-21_10-44-48.png
    887.3 KB · Views: 558
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Nevermind the switch from the OMA master plan - it is interesting how the parkland component have gotten smaller and smaller than before even in the US/Adamson proposal - from the city's slidedeck:

View attachment 135160

All that while the ask for floorspace is increasing. I think they are starting to push it.

AoD
Click to expand...

I wonder if the proponent thought it'd have better luck getting the city to move off its no-residential position before it started the process, insofar as it was banking on with-residential margins to be able to deliver on the more impressive parkland scheme.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Nevermind the switch from the OMA master plan - it is interesting how the parkland component have gotten smaller and smaller than before even in the US/Adamson proposal - from the city's slidedeck:
Click to expand...

And most of that parkland is shoved next to that noisy roadway, Lake Shore Blvd.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Nevermind the switch from the OMA master plan - it is interesting how the parkland component have gotten smaller and smaller than before even in the US/Adamson proposal - from the city's slidedeck:

View attachment 135160

All that while the ask for floorspace is increasing. I think they are starting to push it.

AoD
Click to expand...

Really disappointed with the massing. Office towers do not need to be rectangles imposing on the streetscape.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top