UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...there's appears to be a lot of developers who seem content in providing them just that. /blehSometimes it feels like the city wants every building to be a grey spandrel box with wrap-around balconies
Toronto 510 Yonge | 196.9m | 59s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle
- Thread starter PMT
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
This one is tentatively headed to the OLT in November.
It is the subject of a Request for Direction Report at next week's Council Meeting.
Everything is currently confidential, but the style leads to me to believe that a settlement offer is on the table.
It is the subject of a Request for Direction Report at next week's Council Meeting.
Everything is currently confidential, but the style leads to me to believe that a settlement offer is on the table.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Let me take a wild guess...
Confidential Attachment 1:
"As requested by planning staff, the primary facade is no longer angled and is situated parallel to the street.
Unfortunately this site revision has created shadowing issues and is unacceptable in its present form."
Northern Light
Superstar
Let us hope for something better..........we shall see soon.
Sky High Arch
New Member
If they Get approval in November when would you expect to see them come in and start demolishing?
Northern Light
Superstar
* assuming an approval *
Too many variables to say. I don't know if Kingsett would keep this in-house or flip it out as they so often do.
That alone could impact a timeline enormously.
But any which way, Kingsett is rarely mistaken for CentreCourt......and no permits have been applied for yet; which means it'll be awhile.
3Dementia
Senior Member
I am obviously much more interested in what is approved, than when a start date might be.
P.S. I was frankly scared to click on the thread bump (to see my reverse-psychology post above had failed ;-).
P.S. I was frankly scared to click on the thread bump (to see my reverse-psychology post above had failed ;-).
Northern Light
Superstar
Sadly...........Ding Ding.......... @3Dementia gets the prize. LOL
But not for this one.........we are getting just one big rectilinear building parallel to Yonge.
Details below the previously confidential report links:
* note, the reports indicate that at the time of the offer, the new architecture wasn't not yet finalized, so no pretty renders and no unit counts.
From the above:
@HousingNowTO will take an interest in this next bit, affordable housing via the S. 37 agreement:
Additional Items:
$50,000 for a Bikeshare station
A bumpout at Breadalbane and Yonge
1 bikeshare membership per unit
1 carshare membership per unit
Very preliminary and limited Arch. Plans (elevation drawings and Site Plan)
From the above:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Ugh, planning has to ruin friggen everything. The angled building here reduced shadow impacts on the park and made for an interesting building form… now this is just some basic condo building again.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Suffice to say I'm more than unsettled by this Settlement... so glad they also nixed the little podium cantilever, likely saving the city from imminent ruin.
If the gorgeous vertical colour, and horizontal banding around each set of 2 floors, has also disappeared... I'll assume a resubmission from TF is in the works.
Sometimes this joint is just painful to watch.
If the gorgeous vertical colour, and horizontal banding around each set of 2 floors, has also disappeared... I'll assume a resubmission from TF is in the works.
Sometimes this joint is just painful to watch.
Northern Light
Superstar
A bit too much; but yes, their desire to check-boxes often gets in the way of innovative and/or quality design.
Agreed.
Maybe, (all too likely); but I think we need to see the final re-iteration from BDPQ to pass judgement here.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Thrilled they appear to have also nixed the crown/mechanical setbacks (stepbacks)... way too much architectural expression for this town.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-228706.pdf
UT
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-228706.pdf
UT
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
I'll be shocked if the final product doesn't end up being grey at this point.
Bjays92
Senior Member
Can someone actually explain to me the rationale behind this?
Like why does everything have to contribute to the streetwall, I cannot understand the underlying reasons for that requirement in the first place.
Like why does everything have to contribute to the streetwall, I cannot understand the underlying reasons for that requirement in the first place.
amh
Active Member
Planning by nature tends to be about policy and strictly adhering to said policy, than the nuances of design. So something that should operate as an urbanistic guideline becomes a piece of policy that is wielded ruthlessly instead of being applied within the spirit of the law or on a block-wide basis.
The fact that they wanted this tower rotated to orthogonal is mind-boggling to me. Absolute stupidity.
The fact that they wanted this tower rotated to orthogonal is mind-boggling to me. Absolute stupidity.