Toronto Natasha Residences | 156.9m | 47s | Lanterra | BDP Quadrangle

Automation Gallery said:
Not according to Atllantis (post#6) which was at the community meeting....green space for that lot and the 16 storey Pinnacle structure to the south.:confused:
Click to expand...

The green space was to go further south so as to create a continuous opening across John Street at mid block. So far Pinnacle has not agreed to anything and is likely in talks with the developer of the project which is the subject of this thread.
 
Unless I misunderstood what Vaughan and the developer said, I left the meeting with the complete opposite picture: public space to the north and midrise tower to the south. Reason I say that is because I clearly remember the developer saying that they were tentatively planning to allow the west wall of their ground floor retail to interact with the adjacent lot to the west. If a building were to go right up to the property line on the west side, then the developers comment there would make no sense to me as I can't see why they would want their west wall to interact and open out towards a neighbouring building. Secondly, I remember Vaughan saying that the only place they could make a tower work on that lot is to the south side because or spacing requirements between towers, etc.

He did also say that he wanted a continuous open space on John street which I suppose doesn't quite square with the picture I'm painting here, but then the tower to the north of the lot wouldn't make much sense with everything else I heard.

Of course nothing has been agreed and Vaughan mentioned his intention to get both developers to talk about their plans to get something cohesive for both lots. Let's see what they come up with! :)
 
urbanation just posted the render on their twitter feed:

292676989.jpg


It's different, eh? (And meets Teeple's obsession with energy efficiency goals.)
 
Atlantis said:
Unless I misunderstood what Vaughan and the developer said, I left the meeting with the complete opposite picture: public space to the north and midrise tower to the south. Reason I say that is because I clearly remember the developer saying that they were tentatively planning to allow the west wall of their ground floor retail to interact with the adjacent lot to the west. If a building were to go right up to the property line on the west side, then the developers comment there would make no sense to me as I can't see why they would want their west wall to interact and open out towards a neighbouring building. Secondly, I remember Vaughan saying that the only place they could make a tower work on that lot is to the south side because or spacing requirements between towers, etc.

He did also say that he wanted a continuous open space on John street which I suppose doesn't quite square with the picture I'm painting here, but then the tower to the north of the lot wouldn't make much sense with everything else I heard.

Of course nothing has been agreed and Vaughan mentioned his intention to get both developers to talk about their plans to get something cohesive for both lots. Let's see what they come up with! :)
Click to expand...

The site immediately to the west, where the Pinnacle sales centre is presently situated, is still a potential development site. There has been no change. If there is a potential for changing this, it has yet to be announced.
 
Note on the rendering: this is a very early stage design, and the final may be quite different.

Jus' sayin'.

42
 
^This is a large post and beam building that is going to disappear. Allied is looking to take three out on the other side of Spadina.
 
Yeah it's sad that on this message board so many people think height somehow automatically creates a better city, and that height is the priority. That's no better than the NIMBYism of smaller cities that won't allow anything but low-rise buildings.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top