Toronto 2 Carlton | 251.1m | 73s | Northam | Arcadis

Noticed the height is the same as the UT database, but now described as 80 storeys.

2-Carlton.png

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-162867.pdf
 
You guys! It could of even looks worse than it looks like on this new rendering. I like the old one too with its antena and simple but effective square box look for the facade that climbs to the the top. Giving it a cartoonish vibe like the Grid Condo. But this rendering has lots of nice detail on it which makes the building look classy. Starting with the rich looking cream coloured columns on the podium and tower and black trim accenting certain areas with dark glazed windows in the middle of the tower etc.
 
A few new renders:

Toronto Model 01-28-21 2 Carlton2.png


Toronto Model 01-28-21 2 Carlton.png
 
I like the massing on this one and the height fits perfectly into this area. Maybe the exterior could be cleaned up a bit but otherwise this looks like a solid addition.
 
I don't understand why they hate the idea of having the south wall of the podium run parallel to Carleton, as the current building does. Nope, has to be a boring box that doesn't align with the street at all because then they can claim they added some useless "parkette" in the wasted space. Ugh.

And they still didn't integrate a TTC entrance to get rid of the one in the sidewalk, which is like, the biggest benefit that would come from redeveloping this site. Fail.
 
3Dementia said:
Noticed the height is the same as the UT database, but now described as 80 storeys.

View attachment 296776
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-162867.pdf
Click to expand...

The office space is inadequate

The architecture regrettable.

And this is as stupid a spot for an on-site parkland dedication as I've seen; and that is saying something.

There are existing green spaces nearby that might benefit from a small addition.

There is no point to such an absurdly small space.

Worth adding, the land value next to many of those (existing) parks would be considerably lower in many cases, and therefore allow a large amount of space to be acquired.
 
Last edited:
I rather think it fits in perfectly in this city! You have seen what passes for tower architecture here, right? :p

Now, is the pointless "park" for "public contribution" or whatever the regulation is called reasons?
 
SunriseChampion said:
I rather think it fits in perfectly in this city! You have seen what passes for tower architecture here, right? :p

Now, is the pointless "park" for "public contribution" or whatever the regulation is called reasons?
Click to expand...

There is a rule on larger developments that you automatically supply 10% of the site for parkland or provide cash-in-lieu.

In areas short of parkland this can be increased to 20%.

I think what you're talking about is 'section 37' money; which is the extra $$ developers contribute when asking to increase height and density over what the Official Plan allows.

That is not this.

Though, in theory, those monies could be used to expand a park off-site; or, rare though this may be, could be satisfied by dedicated additional on-site land.

But really, the 10% rule was arrived at when thinking about 400-acre subdivisions and that providing a 4-acre park.

The rule was never conceived of to deal with sites of ~ 1 acre.

0.1 acres or for that matter 0.4 acres is not really a usable green space.

You can't even provide a full-sized playground on that.
 
Ah, I understand. For some reason I thought sec. 37 (I had it as sec. 51 in my head, fml) was automatic.

So, clearly it's somehow in this developer's interest to throw in the useless park instead of cash, which they probably don't have or want to pretend they can't find.
 
SunriseChampion said:
Ah, I understand. For some reason I thought sec. 37 (I had it as sec. 51 in my head, fml) was automatic.

So, clearly it's somehow in this developer's interest to throw in the useless park instead of cash, which they probably don't have or want to pretend they can't find.
Click to expand...

@ProjectEnd has pointed out this proposal is likely a fiction; that is to say, one that won't actually go ahead w/the existing owner.

I would imagine, agreeing to an onsite dedication would be preferable to having to pay out cash for something you don't intend to build.

I'll add, the City may be agreeable (or may not), because the current mandate is to actually get parkland out of developers rather than cash; which keeps piling up w/relatively little to show for it.
 
Northern Light said:
@ProjectEnd has pointed out this proposal is likely a fiction;
Click to expand...

Well that's good! Genre fiction. Science fiction: wtf is this?!
Or horror: who would design such a monster?!
Or fantasy: "parks" like this only exist in dreams and nightmares

Fiction would seem to be the designer's credentials. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top