News   Jul 31, 2024
News Roundup for July 31, 2024
 154     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
Wards Island Summer Sunset
 204     0 
News   Jul 30, 2024
Ambitious Residential Proposal Retains Car Dealership at Jane and St Clair
 1.4K     5 

Planning at Distillery

Other design districts are in established parts of the city. These retailers moved in knowing intensification was on it's way. King Street developments would be fine but the only way to get the numbers in that developers property is with tall point towers. Complaints should have been made when the developer bought the property not after. Was it not obvious that this would happen? They only own the distillery, not the land around it. Sean for the numbers of people they need to make a healthy profit they must build up. How do you propose they build mid-rise on that area of land? They'd need to convert all those buildings into condo's and loft plus build on top of half of them. I think what we're getting is more then fair. Right now all they're doing is dismantling one old warehouse to build on top of it.

Do we say "NO" to the developer and watch businesses flee the area as we expect them to wait for the perimeter of the district to rise?

I'm sure if you approached the developer and asked them to purchase more land from TEDCO and build around it you'd be scoffed at. This is their investment and thus far they've returned the site to it's former glory if not even better. It's now a nice area and no longer just a great place to shoot movies to look like Auschwitz.
 
Andrew,

It's indeed a nice area. But Pure Spirit's base is certainly not a good sign, parking garage and all. There's ways of making money - some condos were already built in and around the Distillery lands, there's rent from retailers, there's the chance to incorporate some mid-rise buildings to match what's around.

Arguments in favour of the towers have centred around a few points - that the retail needs residents living right there, that the developer has an inalienable right to make large profits by building the tall towers, and that people like the architecture and mixing new modernist glass towers with 19th century buildings.

The first point is very arguable. The second point, yes, I don't mind there being profit taken in exchange for revitializing the area (I'm no communist), but I find it difficult to believe that tall point towers in the middle of a NHS is be the only way to do so. The third point is very much a matter of taste. I like Clear Spirit, it's just the specific location within the Distillery District that bothers me.

It's a National Historic Site, I just don't think the new towers treat the site with enough respect - and like I said before, this does not mean "faux". At the time, perhaps the developer should have bought a bit more land, though I agree it would be much harder now. But there's plenty of ways to profit without having to tack-on towers.
 
maestro said:
not my train of thought however they are across Cherry Street which is hardly the scale of a 401 and/or Lakeshore Dr in Chicago hence the reasoning behind refering to this block as the distillery district expansion (although "main street distillery" is an extension of Trinity further west)



Three towers in total

Phase 1 - 32 storey Pure Spirits (u/c)
Phase 2 - 40 storey Clear Spirits (sales)
Phase 3 - 48 storey twin of Clear Spirits
Click to expand...

Just think...Pure Spirits will be the shortest of the three and look how incredibly dominating it is. The other two towers are going right in the middle of the distillery and are quite a bit taller.

This is totally inappropriate.
 
SeanTrans said:
Andrew,

It's indeed a nice area. But Pure Spirit's base is certainly not a good sign, parking garage and all. There's ways of making money - some condos were already built in and around the Distillery lands, there's rent from retailers, there's the chance to incorporate some mid-rise buildings to match what's around.

Arguments in favour of the towers have centred around a few points - that the retail needs residents living right there, that the developer has an inalienable right to make large profits by building the tall towers, and that people like the architecture and mixing new modernist glass towers with 19th century buildings.

The first point is very arguable. The second point, yes, I don't mind there being profit taken in exchange for revitializing the area (I'm no communist), but I find it difficult to believe that tall point towers in the middle of a NHS is be the only way to do so. The third point is very much a matter of taste. I like Clear Spirit, it's just the specific location within the Distillery District that bothers me.

It's a National Historic Site, I just don't think the new towers treat the site with enough respect - and like I said before, this does not mean "faux". At the time, perhaps the developer should have bought a bit more land, though I agree it would be much harder now. But there's plenty of ways to profit without having to tack-on towers.
Click to expand...

Well said, I agree.
 
It's a mistake that people several years from now will realize.

Oh crap, we shouldn't have built it there.
 
SeanTrans said:
The second point, yes, I don't mind there being profit taken in exchange for revitializing the area (I'm no communist), but I find it difficult to believe that tall point towers in the middle of a NHS is be the only way to do so.
Click to expand...

They're limited by the amount of space they can build on so Yes point Towers are really the only option for the developer.
 
Jarrek said:
It's a mistake that people several years from now will realize.

Oh crap, we shouldn't have built it there.
Click to expand...



Or....wow what a great neighborhood we have here.

BTW, NHS the buildings registered on site are Bldgs. 2,3,4,5,35,36,53,54,55,56,57. Is the building being built on top of one of these? I'm just curious.
 
I agree Pure Spirits base is a little dominating however I love the contrasting look of the tall modern tower to the historical district than the Options for Homes midrise towers that unsuccessful attempt to blend in
 
Andrew3D said:
They're limited by the amount of space they can build on so Yes point Towers are really the only option for the developer.
Click to expand...

How much space do they own in the area? How much land do they own in the city? I find it hard to believe to mammoth towers right in the middle of the Distillery is the only option they had.

Secondly, as National Historic Site, there should be restrictions on what can be built in the Distillery. The city restricts developers all the time; Stinson's best proposal for Sapphire Tower was shot down by the city because of the shadows it would cast on NPS - and that's in a location perfect for a tall tower(s). The same can't be said of the middle of the Distillery District.
 
Andrew3D said:
Or....wow what a great neighborhood we have here.

BTW, NHS the buildings registered on site are Bldgs. 2,3,4,5,35,36,53,54,55,56,57. Is the building being built on top of one of these? I'm just curious.
Click to expand...

Some buildings will be taken down for the next two towers...yet another reason they shouldn't go up.
 
How much space do they own in the area? How much land do they own in the city? I find it hard to believe to mammoth towers right in the middle of the Distillery is the only option they had.
Click to expand...

for this development to be profitable ... yes (it really doesn't matter what else they own or what they have planned)

Would you prefer the original development plan of the previous owner which had virtually all the distillery buildings incorporated (facadectomies) into sprawling midrises?
 
maestro said:
for this development to be profitable ... yes (it really doesn't matter what else they own or what they have planned)
Click to expand...

Of course it matters. I'm pretty sure the city could've transfered the density rights to another location they owned, allowing for a more respectful development at the Distillery, while allowing them to build the same number of units at another location.

maestro said:
Would you prefer the original development plan of the previous owner which had virtually all the distillery buildings incorporated (facadectomies) into sprawling midrises?
Click to expand...

What I would prefer is a proper development plan that fits in with the rest of this site. I have no idea why it's frequently suggested this is a good plan because worse has been suggested.
 
syn said:
Of course it matters. I'm pretty sure the city could've transfered the density rights to another location they owned, allowing for a more respectful development at the Distillery, while allowing them to build the same number of units at another location.
Click to expand...

What other location? They own the land at the Distillery, nowhere else. And I'm sure that whatever they're tearing down for these two buildings will be rebuilt after. Have you not seen the attention to detail they've been able to achieve so far? Down at the NHSG&W site.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top