Toronto 462 Wellington West | 53.27m | 15s | Verve | Giannone Petricone

ProjectEnd said:
Sure, but Cat Park is Allied and RioCan's contribution to the City. The City has no obligation to match or contribute themselves.
Click to expand...

Didn't Allied and RioCan bail on Cat Park? I thought they are just providing the land and a cheque to the City, and not building out the park themselves, which is a shame. Now the City will have to go through a full procurement process and we might not even get Cat Park if that landscape architect is not selected by the City.
 
Kenojuak said:
Didn't Allied and RioCan bail on Cat Park? I thought they are just providing the land and a cheque to the City, and not building out the park themselves, which is a shame. Now the City will have to go through a full procurement process and we might not even get Cat Park if that landscape architect is not selected by the City.
Click to expand...

They didn't bail on anything. The Well team were always just contributing the land. Agreed that procurement might be an issue.
 
400WellingtonGuy said:
They didn't bail on anything. The Well team were always just contributing the land. Agreed that procurement might be an issue.
Click to expand...

The S. 37 agreement gave the option of either completing the park, which would have gotten us cat park, or writing a cheque and having the City do it. Either way the land is being contributed as required. I do think it is fair to say that going all through zoning and community consultation with cat park, and then paying a fee and leaving this to City procurement, is bailing in some form despite being legally compliant.

Edit: all of this, by the way, is just a response to the comment

Cat Park is Allied and RioCan's contribution to the City.
Click to expand...

Which is not true because allied and RioCan are not contributing cat park. They are contributing land and cash. The City may or may not turn it into car park.
 
Last edited:
While the responsibility has not yet been entirely nailed down, it is looking like the partnership will be constructing the park.
 
Verve Senior Living and Giannone Petricone


181984


181985
 
Guarantee you the city is going to want a revision with their 10% parkland on site as a sliver along the east side instead of cash in lieu.
 
AlbertC said:
Verve Senior Living and Giannone Petricone


View attachment 181984

View attachment 181985
Click to expand...

Am I not seeing something correctly? Between the top render and the bottom render, the space at ground level seems to have changed colour.

Overall, not a bad building.....though the blank space at ground level is unappealing.

The bottom render, which gives a sense of two different buildings works for me more.

Where the upper render leaves me feeling that the asymmetry of the east and west portions (heritage and new) is a bit jarring.
 
Northern Light said:
Am I not seeing something correctly? Between the top render and the bottom render, the space at ground level seems to have changed colour.

Overall, not a bad building.....though the blank space at ground level is unappealing.

The bottom render, which gives a sense of two different buildings works for me more.

Where the upper render leaves me feeling that the asymmetry of the east and west portions (heritage and new) is a bit jarring.
Click to expand...
The blank wall is the parking garage entrance.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top