josephdavidmckee
New Member
I also really liked the original design, however it's great to see office and hotel here. This combined with the office component at Westbank's project will help keep the programming of the neighborhood diverse.
Toronto 217 Adelaide West | 103.5m | 23s | Humbold Properties | Adamson
- Thread starter waterloowarrior
- Start date
enrigue8
Active Member
I just hope the new project will fit well in the district.
If an aqua come here, it will be cool.
It not just the height that count.
Architecture expression too.
If an aqua come here, it will be cool.
It not just the height that count.
Architecture expression too.
maestro
Senior Member
It's doesn't fit the neighbourhood. No need to move onto step 2.
Toronto doesn't really need another Aqua inspired tower and especially from Kirkor.
Toronto doesn't really need another Aqua inspired tower and especially from Kirkor.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Would the Westbank and 100 Simcoe proposals be jeopardized by this proposal? Is this about tower separation?
modernizt
Senior Member
1) Sad to see they've moved onto something gimmicky instead of the original design which was refreshingly coherent from this firm.
2) Are we calling setbacks at grade "parkettes" now? Fun!
2) Are we calling setbacks at grade "parkettes" now? Fun!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
19 Duncan would be, yes. We haven't seen anything for 100 Simcoe yet but it could be as well. 217 Adelaide is essentially a 0-lot line proposal. It assumes that because it's a small lot, other, adjacent, proposals will take care of any setbacks on their own property. If Humbold / Kirkor were to arrange this with the adjacent property owners and their architects beforehand it might be fine, but since they are just trying to bully their way through the process, it's likely that they will not be successful.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Typically adjacent land-owner / proponents would appeal any land-use decisions that may have negative implications for their proposals or future possible site alterations/improvements to the OMB. I have a hard time seeing how this application moves forward with zero set-backs given the potential to impact adjacent properties. Even if the city approves the application, adjacent land owners would likely protect their interests with an appeal.
enrigue8
Active Member
The future of this site look really uncertain .
I hate when the situation is like that.
Lets just hope the site will be developed one day by something useful and beautiful.
I hate when the situation is like that.
Lets just hope the site will be developed one day by something useful and beautiful.
kicked it in the sun
New Member
why don't they just change the damned rules so that the market can determine whether people will buy buildings adjacent to each other? wtf is this obsession with over planning all this stuff? has anyone been to new york or tokyo? toronto and vancouver treat podium point towers as a universal moral truth, to be protected by canon law and indoctrinated into the young as self-evident. just let developers build on their lots and if people don't buy because they want more light or whatever, the price will go down and other developers will choose to avoid it! same goes for parking and balconies - they should never be required! it's so hard for people in toronto and vancouver to see how hopelessly and unconsciously locked into their ideology they are.
in my opinions, building code for safety compliance and ensuring a building has ground floor retail where appropriate, these are pretty much the only things the city should worry about.
in my opinions, building code for safety compliance and ensuring a building has ground floor retail where appropriate, these are pretty much the only things the city should worry about.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
I don't think balconies are required by law; I think they are market-driven behavior. I mostly agree with you about parking, and I think many others here will also.
As for tower separation, I would agree except that when a developer builds such a tower it adversely affects the surrounding properties. It imposes a cost on its neighbors that they are right to be upset about. If a single developer planned a group of towers bunched tightly together, and if buyers knew the plan, I would fully support it. In this case the market should decide.
TheKingEast
Senior Member
I do find things get a little out of hand with the over planning but would you really want to just leave it up to the market in this city? Yikes!
maestro
Senior Member
You got to be kidding me. You're actually comparing our "up for interpretation" planning in Toronto to the unwavering maximum/minimums set in Vancouver or New York?!? Also, balconies aren't required. I believe they still count towards amenity space but even that has loosened up. Any sort of parking requirement has been long put to bed too.
You don't build great cities on a whim. Some structure is needed. The fact that forumers are suggesting this the particular proposal has little chance in our fine city makes this an exceptionally poor plan that wouldn't make it past the inbox just about anywhere else.
Our planning is anything but overbearing and developers are fully aware of this. Hence, why you have a 44 FAR (44 storeys at 100% lot coverage) tower proposal launch last week.
Last edited:
P23
Active Member
I don't think he's saying balconies are required by law. Nor that all regulations should be cast aside. The building separation guidelines do seem odd to me as well, however I imagine as space downtown becomes more limited this regulation will fall out of favour.
maestro
Senior Member
I understood " should never be required", "let the market decide" as developers being required to build them. I also don't see it falling out of favour as there's sound reasoning for tower separations and density limits. (unless your into a suffocating, dystopian, Mega City One type atmosphere.)