316 Bloor West | 98m | 29s | State Building Group | Kirkor Architects

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
13,557
Reaction score
7,781
A limiting distance agreement usually must be signed by affected landowners no? State Building Group probably managed to get the neighbouring landowners to sign away their tower rights somehow..
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
22,546
Reaction score
17,686
Location
by the Humber
I imagine that the limiting distance agreement pertains to the west along Bloor only, and probably stops the owners of the three-storey building from replacing it with a tower. The Pizza Pizza location and the Scotiabank at the end of the block, however, are begging for redevelopment. I imagine the owners of the three-storey building negotiated a fee to sign away their redevelopment rights.

BloorSpadinaNE.jpg

Google Street View

42
 

Attachments

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
22,546
Reaction score
17,686
Location
by the Humber
That image is old, reflecting the 42-storey version, as opposed to the 29-storey one which was approved. There's still no rendering for it, but I have updated to database file otherwise with the new numbers. The building is down to 341 suites from 535.

42
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,495
Reaction score
985
Location
Downtown
Among many being asked, some really good and interesting questions at the OMB (hearing scheduled March 25, 2019):


"11. Do the height and density restrictions of OPA 365 inappropriately limit height and density on lands located on, or adjacent to, a transit station servicing 3 rapid transit lines?

12. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies and/or a tower site on Map 3 where such development site requires a land assembly and for which no application has been filed?

13. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies or a tower site on Map 3:
(a) in the absence of complete planning, transportation and servicing analysis that justifies those development sites for such high-density development?
(b) where policies in OPA 365 assume such combined sites will have access to, and use of, other neighbouring private lands, including private driveways and laneways?
(c) where one development site is favoured to the detriment of another without the justification provided by fulsome planning, transportation and servicing analysis and, in particular, addresses conformity with other policies of OPA 365? "

from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2018/2018canlii5642/2018canlii5642.html#TOpoli

Cross-posted: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-300-bloor-west-142m-38s-collecdev-kpmb.9902/page-9
 

Top