Toronto 20 Front West | 173.82m | 52s | Brookfield | KPMB

[Paclo]

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

Resubmitted with the following changes:

• Height increased from 172.4 to 173.82m
• Total residential units increased from 598 to 599
• Total bicycle parking increased from 599 to 600
• Minor GFA increase

No new renderings. SPA remains refused.

 

[Northern Light]

Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of TEYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-246994.pdf

599 units to be secured as rental for 99 years

16 affordable units to be secured, also for a term of 99 years

@HousingNowTO

****

Of note, a condition in regards to LDA (limiting distance agreement) here:

***

Observation, this is the third report to this meeting which is recommending office to residential conversion (waiving office replacement). The City is not being at all obstinate, and is fairly consistently picking up affordable housing as the offset.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

In B4 all the ...

...there are schematic renders of this proposal at the bottom of the linked report this time. And for what that's worth.

 

[Bibi L]

 

[Northern Light]

Approved at Council with a minor amendment:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-246994.pdf

And the amendment:

 

[Amare]

This is going to be one, absolutely dreadful and disgusting build. KPMB is a joke for designing this, and Brookfield is laughable for accepting it.

 

[Bibi L]

This is going to be one, absolutely dreadful and disgusting build. KPMB is a joke for designing this, and Brookfield is laughable for accepting it.

Why couldn’t they have just gone with the original design from the 80s proposal?

 

[Northern Light]

Wrong link.
412-418 Church Street and 79-81 Granby Street

Whoops!

Fixed!

Thanks!

 

[ProjectEnd]

This is going to be one, absolutely dreadful and disgusting build. KPMB is a joke for designing this, and Brookfield is laughable for accepting it.

Yikes.

 

[Deadpool X]

It's going to ruin one of the iconic vantage point from Front and Church. This is one of the situations where we need Vancouver's view cone policy.

 

[Riseth]

It's going to ruin one of the iconic vantage point from Front and Church. This is one of the situations where we need Vancouver's view cone policy.

Plenty of once iconic vantage points around the city have seen massive changes over the past two decades. Unfortunately, we don't live in a city or housing market that can justify taking things like that into consideration anymore.

If we were some mid-sized city with cheap housing and fewer zoning restrictions then yeah, things would be a lot more static.

 

[CanadianNational]

The details chosen better be a paragon of finesse and high style on this one, because it's inherent blockishness is going to take a miracle to overcome. Hoooo boy.

 

[Bayer]

It's going to ruin one of the iconic vantage point from Front and Church. This is one of the situations where we need Vancouver's view cone policy.

Can it be iconic if it didn't exist 32 years ago?

 

[Rimawi]

I do like the way the sides of the heritage building are being reconstructed in a similar old world flair. So I’ll take that win! It’s far better than the sides of the building currently which is essentially a blank wall. Will also give the plaza at Brookfield place a much more welcoming feel

 

[rdaner]

No comment on the design but that is a great location for residential! Talk about city-living!