Northern Light
Superstar
New to the AIC is this very large Application, 7 new towers, done as infill on a tower-in-the-park site just west of Yonge and south off of Steeles. (the property abuts Centrepoint Mall.
Site as is:
The northerly tower (foreground) would be demolished, with replacement rental units constructed, the southerly tower would be retained.
app.toronto.ca
From the Docs:
Comments: What's to like? LOL The render certainly doesn't engender much hope for the visual appeal of this proposal. Additionally, the park dedication is 'leftover' land and should be refused. There is literally a large park proposed adjacent to this site, and a school yard to the immediate south. The parkland resources should go to make an existing or proposed park larger, rather than provided a small, non-functional park. Ideally, to me, they would work something out w/the proposal next door and enlarge their proposed park; though, to do that in a functional way would require some serious rigging of the site plan.
The nominal FSI is not ridiculous for the site, on paper, but those renders certainly give one the sense of an overly packed in proposal without good human scale.
Edit to add: 2 days in a row of 50s towers and no sign of @3Dementia, hmmm.
Site as is:
The northerly tower (foreground) would be demolished, with replacement rental units constructed, the southerly tower would be retained.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9e130/9e1303f7caeb8d84fb90df748dbf2056315b102a" alt="app.toronto.ca"
Application Details
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a4d8c/a4d8ce00f5911b7a07edc7ef735aafa9d6c5aa91" alt="app.toronto.ca"
From the Docs:
Comments: What's to like? LOL The render certainly doesn't engender much hope for the visual appeal of this proposal. Additionally, the park dedication is 'leftover' land and should be refused. There is literally a large park proposed adjacent to this site, and a school yard to the immediate south. The parkland resources should go to make an existing or proposed park larger, rather than provided a small, non-functional park. Ideally, to me, they would work something out w/the proposal next door and enlarge their proposed park; though, to do that in a functional way would require some serious rigging of the site plan.
The nominal FSI is not ridiculous for the site, on paper, but those renders certainly give one the sense of an overly packed in proposal without good human scale.
Edit to add: 2 days in a row of 50s towers and no sign of @3Dementia, hmmm.
Last edited: