Toronto 250 University | 155.76m | 47s | Northam | Arcadis

AlbertC said:
Some subtle design changes in the August 27, 2021 resubmission:

app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca


View attachment 348408
Click to expand...

Pffft! Sure, be like that, don't tell us what the subtle changes were! Make us (ahem, me) look it up!

😉

From the Cover Letter:

1631483302308.png

1631483323568.png


1631483366028.png


On the above: (my summation/take)

7 - storey/21M height reduction.......... (shrug)

The proponents agree to the above on the condition that the number of storeys not be expressly limited in the implementing by-law??? Why?

The tower provides an aesthetically pleasing facade? It's interesting, even? Who decided this was the case, I fail to see evidence in the renders!

Reduced setbacks on 2 sides............sigh, the building is already a proposal best described as architectural desecration.........can't you at least agree to sorta hide it from street level?

The TTC proposal is fine, as far as it goes.............has the proponent or the planner on this file been in touch w/Mx?
 
Last edited:
"The tower design has been sculpted to provide and interesting and aesthetically pleasing facade" 😂

No, what this tower, proposal, and Northam need to do is quietly see itself out the door and let this site be as it is. Because their proposal is a laughing joke and in no way does the site justice.
 
The height reduction is only 14 metres, 176m-162m

Toronto Model 09-12-21 250 University.png
 
Koops65 said:
The height reduction is only 14 metres, 176m-162m
Click to expand...

The cover letter says 155.76; that's where I took that number from.

Do the letter and the plans not match?

I assume the elevator overrun was also excluded previously, or the Cover Letter reference wouldn't make sense.
 
It also says that height excludes a 6 metre elevator overrun... so its 155.76 plus 6 metres. I will add that the cover letter isn't very precise about the height, and it can be rather confusing.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
The TTC proposal is fine, as far as it goes.............has the proponent or the planner on this file been in touch w/Mx?
Click to expand...
It would be ideal if the new entrance here could have direct access to both the Line 1 and OL platforms. Then maybe Metrolinx could give up its dream of wrecking the Osgoode Hall gardens.
 
What a joke, so it's 2021 and now this city realizes this building's significance that it should be heritage designated? They didnt realize this back in 2015, or 2010, or 2005? Bureaucracy at it's finest right here.

Anyways looks like this is too little, too late. The city is too late to act on yet another property.
 
daptive said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1483526805797617669

Seems like this has cleared one hurdle. Document linked in tweet: Alterations to a Heritage Property and Authority to Enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement - 250 University Avenue (Jan 4 2022)
Click to expand...

First, I'll bring the Tweet forward for everyone:

1642539685882.png


This is the City document to which the Tweet links; a Jan 4th report to Preservation Board:


From said document:

1642539811737.png

1642539847114.png

1642539868239.png


1642539892220.png

1642539907406.png


****

Description:

1642539993204.png


****

Conservation Plan:

1642540060501.png


****

The good news; the existing building is being more or less saved.

The bad news: A completely unnecessary and unsympathetic tower is being put over the top for no particularly good reason except profit. (while understandable from the owner's perspective,
there is no over-riding public objective/justification, which I would argue ought to be necessary in the circumstances)
 
Welcome to Toronto, a joke of a city when it comes to respecting its own history and is absolutely incapable of protecting anything of cultural/historical significance.

I always say this jokingly but at this point it's probably true; the only buildings that are safe from development in this city are: Queen's Park, Old City Hall, and City Hall. Everything else is pretty much ripe for development in this wild wild west of a city.

Trash like this is what makes me absolutely irate with the state of affairs in this city/province. One question that immediately comes to mind include: why the hell wasnt this designated 10, 15, 20 years ago?

But I digress, we live in a system that will tolerate sheer dog crap being built just for a quick buck without paying attention to any potential repercussions until 20+ years down the line.
 
Amare said:
Welcome to Toronto, a joke of a city when it comes to respecting its own history and is absolutely incapable of protecting anything of cultural/historical significance.

I always say this jokingly but at this point it's probably true; the only buildings that are safe from development in this city are: Queen's Park, Old City Hall, and City Hall. Everything else is pretty much ripe for development in this wild wild west of a city.

Trash like this is what makes me absolutely irate with the state of affairs in this city/province. One question that immediately comes to mind include: why the hell wasnt this designated 10, 15, 20 years ago?

But I digress, we live in a system that will tolerate sheer dog crap being built just for a quick buck without paying attention to any potential repercussions until 20+ years down the line.
Click to expand...
Ordinarily I would find this a bit hyperbolic to add my like, but I am so incredibly frustrated with the idea that this building would have a tower put atop it, that I am having trouble feeling any differently than Amare.

There are so few examples of these types of early modern office towers in Toronto, let alone ones that are so well known and visible right on the City's premier boulevard. It absolutely should remain untouched, and the rationale is heritage; to see a heritage report that supports redevelopment is dispiriting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top