Toronto 411 Church | 121.91m | 38s | CentreCourt | IBI Group

enrigue8 said:
Ridiculous torontonians citizens !
If it was an ugly boxy building, it would have been approved.
Because it different from the norm, it opposed.
I hope OMB will approve it and it will keep it design.
Can someone explain me why beautiful building are rarely done and ugly ones are done ?
:(
Click to expand...

If one was to follow this reasoning, the blame is on the developer, not Toronto citizens.
 
enrigue8 said:
Ridiculous torontonians citizens !
If it was an ugly boxy building, it would have been approved.
Because it different from the norm, it opposed.
I hope OMB will approve it and it will keep it design.
Can someone explain me why beautiful building are rarely done and ugly ones are done ?
:(
Click to expand...

Given your negative remarks about boxy structures, I presume the tower you like is the one with the wavy continuous balconies. If that is the case, you might want to go to the database to check out the renders of Wellesley on the Park (especially the "worms eye view" render) and of Massey Tower. Both are approved and under construction. I don't think there would be objection to this project on the ground that it is "beautiful."

If I were wanting to object to this project, it wouldn't be on account of its beauty. It would be because it looks a bit like a smaller knockoff of those two structures.
 
67Cup said:
Given your negative remarks about boxy structures, I presume the tower you like is the one with the wavy continuous balconies. If that is the case, you might want to go to the database to check out the renders of Wellesley on the Park (especially the "worms eye view" render) and of Massey Tower. Both are approved and under construction. I don't think there would be objection to this project on the ground that it is "beautiful."

If I were wanting to object to this project, it wouldn't be on account of its beauty. It would be because it looks a bit like a smaller knockoff of those two structures.
Click to expand...

I love this project and i want it badly.
I said that because i saw in the past, that beautiful building with great design in the beginning, are redesigned to a standard box with ugly balconies and no style.I dont want that another time.
I love Wellesley on the Park and Massey Tower.They will be a are very nice addition to the skyline.
There is too many crappy designed building in Toronto and i want a change for the best.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Franco
 
Despite being redesigned shorter and fatter, the building has the same balcony design as before @enrigue8.

The City does not approve zoning amendments for buildings based on their exterior designs. At this stage, the City is only concerned with planning matters, mostly being massing, height, number of suites, parking spaces, servicing, retail space and/or office floors, stuff like that. The Design Review Panel also mostly looks at planning matters, and not so much about exterior architectural expression.

After getting zoning approval, buildings still have to get site plan approval. It's at that stage that materials come into play. While the agreement with the City will include a list of what will be used to clad the building, the City has little it can do to force a certain look.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Despite being redesigned shorter and fatter, the building has the same balcony design as before @enrigue8.

The City does not approve zoning amendments for buildings based on their exterior designs. At this stage, the City is only concerned with planning matters, mostly being massing, height, number of suites, parking spaces, servicing, retail space and/or office floors, stuff like that. The Design Review Panel also mostly looks at planning matters, and not so much about exterior architectural expression.

After getting zoning approval, buildings still have to get site plan approval. It's at that stage that materials come into play. While the agreement with the City will include a list of what will be used to clad the building, the City has little it can do to force a certain look.

42
Click to expand...
Thank you interchange42.
So can you tell me please who decide and approve the architectural style of a building ?
Thank you.
 
Last edited:
No one, really. A proponent will advance a design for a project and planning can comment on that design (and make your life considerably more difficult if they don't like it), but there's no mechanism to enforce a certain 'look' or 'style' to something.

The DRP can also comment, but that process is voluntary and their recommendations do not carry any legal weight.
 
ProjectEnd said:
No one, really. A proponent will advance a design for a project and planning can comment on that design (and make your life considerably more difficult if they don't like it), but there's no mechanism to enforce a certain 'look' or 'style' to something.

The DRP can also comment, but that process is voluntary and their recommendations do not carry any legal weight.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
So building are redesigned because planning dislike a design ?
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:

Issues related to transition and shadow can be addressed to the satisfaction of City staff, if the proposal is revised to a maximum 25-storeys, which is within a 15 to 25 storey range in accordance with the Downtown Tall Buildings: Vision and Supplementary Design Guidelines and OPA 183 (Site and Area Specific Policy 382), with a 750 square metre floor plate in a more compact tower shape generally located to the southeast corner of the site. ​

42
Click to expand...

Sounds like an easy fix; the City told them exactly what to do to get approval on these two key issues. Even 25 storeys sounds quite tall if they want to transition nicely into the low-rise Village area. Naturally the developer will fight for more, but I would be content with less in this case.

If the developer had proposed this as midrise, would the larger floor plate be approved?
 
25 storeys should be the max here. That's the direction from the Downtown Tall Building Guidelines and the North Downtown Yonge Planning Framework (OPA 183), which is under appeal.

I have suspicions as to what is going on behind the scenes. There were a bunch of confidential reports that Council dealt with in camera. I'm worry the City and the School Board are going to strike a deal with the developer. This happens far too often and results in bad planning decisions.
 
The TDSB has voted to seek party status at the OMB hearing. Interesting! The new local trustee, Chris Moise, pushed this request forward. Below is the motion that the TDSB approved.

The Board decided:
Whereas, the TDSB values parent and community involvement; and
Whereas, the TDSB values the health and well-being of its students; and
Whereas, the parents and community of Church Street Public School, as well as the City of Toronto oppose the proposed development of 411 Church Street deviating from the currently established zoning bylaws;
Therefore, be it resolved:
That the TDSB apply to the Ontario Municipal Board for party status regarding case number PL 160145, the development located at 411 Church Street, thereby allowing the TDSB to have a seat at the table to negotiate in the best interest of the TDSB and to work cooperatively with the City of Toronto on this portfolio.​
 
bigtony22127 said:
25 storeys should be the max here. That's the direction from the Downtown Tall Building Guidelines and the North Downtown Yonge Planning Framework (OPA 183), which is under appeal.

I have suspicions as to what is going on behind the scenes. There were a bunch of confidential reports that Council dealt with in camera. I'm worry the City and the School Board are going to strike a deal with the developer. This happens far too often and results in bad planning decisions.
Click to expand...

Just to clarify, The City and School Board are not striking a deal. Councillor Wong-Tam and Trustee Moise are adamantly against this development as proposed. If the developer agreed to create no new net shadow on the school grounds then it wouldn't be receiving this much resistance.
 
No new net shadow would probably mean a 6 floor building - which would clearly be unacceptable from the developers perspective.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top