Toronto 49 Ontario Street | 152.4m | 44s | Dream | a—A

[ADRM]

 

[GenerationLee]

Still has that disgusting podium...

 

[ADRM]

View attachment 292563View attachment 292562

And some more from Norm and the gang.

 

[TheKingEast]

That 2 storey building is unfortunate.

 

[bjrkz]

The podium, massing, and entire ground level is unfortunate.

 

[The Preservationist]

At least the Banknote Bar is retained....

 

[bilked]

I love that the Banknote will be a nail house. Though it’s be nice if its well-dressed new neighbour caused it to rethink the EIFS it’s clothed in.

 

[The Preservationist]

A nail house?! Where's someone meant to get a drink with a bit of atmosphere in this town these days?

 

[The Preservationist]

Ok, now understand the term "nail house". I thought you meant it was becoming a nail salon... I actually enjoy these types of establishments serving refreshments or otherwise dotted on the corners here and there. Keeps the scale of the street a bit more approachable.

 

[UrbanFervour]

This is the scale the entire East side is headed.... entire block sized land assemblies and big clunking developments.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This is the scale the entire East side is headed.... entire block sized land assemblies and big clunking developments.

That’s exactly right, and it’s bad. And city planning is responding by fighting for shorter, stubby towers and a lot of facadectomies.

 

[Northern Light]

That’s exactly right, and it’s bad. And city planning is responding by fighting for shorter, stubby towers and a lot of facadectomies.

Solutions?

It's not enough to allow intensification as-of-right (not that i disagree w/that)

But it doesn't block assemblies such as this.

Do we want to limit floor-plates? Do we want to limit assemblies/lot size in absolute terms?

What changes to the rules/laws would make a tangible difference?

And do so w/o killing useful and needed intensification.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Solutions?

It's not enough to allow intensification as-of-right (not that i disagree w/that)

But it doesn't block assemblies such as this.

Do we want to limit floor-plates? Do we want to limit assemblies/lot size in absolute terms?

What changes to the rules/laws would make a tangible difference?

And do so w/o killing useful and needed intensification.

A big positive change would be allowing and encouraging height. So far planning has been trying to cap heights around 20 storeys. Results have been some god-awful slabs. 40-storey point towers, broken up at grade, would be infinitely better.

 

[Northern Light]

A big positive change would be allowing and encouraging height. So far planning has been trying to cap heights around 20 storeys. Results have been some god-awful slabs. 40-storey point towers, broken up at grade, would be infinitely better.

I'm content to agree w/your trade; IF I believe it would take place.

I'm not sure we wouldn't end up w/proposals for 80-storey towers, negotiated down to 40-storey slabs.

 

[Koops65]