Toronto 123 Edward | 189.05m | 59s | Crown Realty Partners | Turner Fleischer

Crown Realty Partners is the developer, according to the address in the application form.

www.crownrealtypartners.com

Contact - Crown Realty Partners

400 University Avenue, Suite 1900, Toronto, ON M5G 1S5 -- T 416.927.1851 -- F 416.927.0863 -- info@crp-cpmi.com
www.crownrealtypartners.com www.crownrealtypartners.com

I see someone finally took a bite at this. This site has been floating on the market for years now with nobody biting as it has.. issues.

They basically decided to fly straight against basically every major policy here:

  • No minimum tower separation (6m! lol!)
  • Larger tower floorplates than required (1040sm vs. 750sm maximum)
  • No podium step backs (0m vs. 3m requirement)
  • No office replacement (all existing office needs to be replaced)
  • Ignoring City Hall view corridor (buildings aren't supposed to protrude behind City Hall when viewed from Nathan Phillips Square)
  • poorly located park
  • etc.
Just comically head-strong of an application. Wonder what in the world they are thinking here, this was already a challenging site and is a big reason nobody was touching it, Crown has gone even further and just made it even more of an uphill battle for themselves. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to do 750sm plates here which would at least improve tower separation a bit, for example, and put office replacement in the podium, especially when you are already pushing up against the view corridor and setback issues with the office tower remaining on the block.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Crown Realty Partners is the developer, according to the address in the application form.

www.crownrealtypartners.com

Contact - Crown Realty Partners

400 University Avenue, Suite 1900, Toronto, ON M5G 1S5 -- T 416.927.1851 -- F 416.927.0863 -- info@crp-cpmi.com
www.crownrealtypartners.com www.crownrealtypartners.com

I see someone finally took a bite at this. This site has been floating on the market for years now with nobody biting as it has.. issues.

They basically decided to fly straight against basically every major policy here:

  • No minimum tower separation (6m! lol!)
  • Larger tower floorplates than required (1040sm vs. 750sm maximum)
  • No podium step backs (0m vs. 3m requirement)
  • No office replacement (all existing office needs to be replaced)
  • Ignoring City Hall view corridor (buildings aren't supposed to protrude behind City Hall when viewed from Nathan Phillips Square)
  • poorly located park
  • etc.
Just comically head-strong of an application. Wonder what in the world they are thinking here, this was already a challenging site and is a big reason nobody was touching it, Crown has gone even further and just made it even more of an uphill battle for themselves. There is no reason they shouldn't be able to do 750sm plates here which would at least improve tower separation a bit, for example, and put office replacement in the podium, especially when you are already pushing up against the view corridor and setback issues with the office tower remaining on the block.
Click to expand...

Good post! Obviously I commented on the throwaway park; and I noticed but failed to mention the obvious view corridor issue w/City Hall; but I was too tired and under-caffeinated to make note of the rest. Suffice to say, the application looks
ridiculous and has a 100% chance of going nowhere it its current form.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Some thoughts:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1545036526878433282
Click to expand...

I will bring PE's thoughtful commentary forward for the click-averse:

1657200848407.png

1657200871115.png

1657200895381.png

1657200919693.png

1657200939611.png

1657200961764.png



1657201004830.png
 

Attachments

  • 1657200991314.png
    1657200991314.png
    19.5 KB · Views: 85
Ok, playing a bit of a devil's advocate here, but please hold on to your rotten produce before hearing me out...

Giving credit where credit is due, architecturally speaking, I think this is the most attractive and interesting design I have ever seen to come out of Turner Fleisher. I didn't know they had it in them. Do they Would they have the chops to pull it off attractively is a whole other question...

(I changed "do they" to "would they" because obviously the planning issues, demo of heritage, failure to replace office are all live major issues. I am personally less concerned about the large floorplates, but the other issues are genuine and serious. In any event I cannot see this getting approved in a remotely similar form to what is portrayed, even at the tribunal.)
 
interchange42 said:
Our front page story on this proposal, including its more ridiculous asks re: elevators and separation distances, is here.

42
Click to expand...

Very good piece by Craig and Teana!

While I encourage everyone to have a look at the whole thing; I will lift the 2 sections that I think hone in on problem asks with good detail.

On Separation Distances:

1657219048770.png


On Elevators:

1657219077233.png
 
Oh god, imagine trying to leave the building at rush hour when there are 370 units per elevator. And like, many of those units may be occupied by more than one person. Yikes.

This is one of the worst things ever proposed in this city and I hope it gets soundly rejected or it's setting a horrific precedent.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top