Toronto 580 King West | 41.83m | 9s | C Squared Properties | AUDAX

Very much hope this works out. I think it's really nice intensification and integrates with the heritage component far better than most. I think I preferred the original design, although it's hard to tell without a real render of the new, but the new outdoor space up there looks quite nice and hopefully something like the vegetation they propose works out.
 
Why not incorporate the existing tenant into the new building?
If the existing tenant had a desire to lease space in the new building, they'd make an offer. This sometimes happens, like the McDonald's at Avenue Road and Bloor, but smaller businesses don't have the luxury of closing up shop for multiple years until a new building can be completed in the same spot.
 
If the existing tenant had a desire to lease space in the new building, they'd make an offer. This sometimes happens, like the McDonald's at Avenue Road and Bloor, but smaller businesses don't have the luxury of closing up shop for multiple years until a new building can be completed in the same spot.
Understandable, but yes it sometimes does happen, even with smaller businesses.
 
Understandable, but yes it sometimes does happen, even with smaller businesses.
Yes, but it isn't the choice of the developer. The business has to be okay with closing up for a multi-year period and then paying increased rents in a new building. That just isn't realistic for most businesses.
 
On behalf of our client, are pleased to submit revised plans and supporting materials that propose a further reduction to the height of the non-residential building to 9 storeys (with an overall height of approximately 41.1 metres, including mechanical penthouse), resulting in a reduction in the total gross floor area to 4,931.5 square metres and a reduction in the overall density to 5.57 FSI (Floor Space Index).

3fwqq.JPG


 
Developer clearly doesn't want to get caught in the 2 year wait cycle for the LPAT - expecially with the new, untested rules.
Welp, looks like this is going to LPAT after all:

I sure am wildly confused at the cycle here. There was nothing wrong with the initial proposal. I've got my own theories about what happened but fundamentally, that we ended up here is disheartening.
 
I sure am wildly confused at the cycle here. There was nothing wrong with the initial proposal. I've got my own theories about what happened but fundamentally, that we ended up here is disheartening.

What are some reasons/theories on what happened? I just want to understand a bit more. Just trying to learn.
 
What are some reasons/theories on what happened? I just want to understand a bit more. Just trying to learn.
Honestly, I think city planners think the only way to protect the character of heritage buildings is to plop glass boxes on top of them, and they have a history of rejecting buildings that mimic or blend in with their heritage bases. In the refusal report, they claimed that it would change the character of the heritage base and that the design isn't "high quality". It's very sad, the old design was really nice.
 
I applied to City Planning once and this is part of the multiple choice questionnaire I had to fill out:

1. A new proposal is filed requesting approval for 7 storeys above grade. What do you do?

Lop off 3 storeys ___ Talk to your supervisor ___

2. A new proposal is filed requesting approval for a tower in the financial district @ 300.11 metres above grade. What do you do?

Reduce to 299.95 m ___ Shred document ___

3. How are you feeling today?

Good ___ Very Good ___ That's up to my supervisor ____
 
Last edited:
Request for Direction to have City staff support a revised version of this proposal at LPAT is on the agenda for the Oct 15th TEYCC meeting.


The deal includes withdrawl of objections to Heritage Conservation District and the Secondary Plan.

Also includes an agreement for heritage lighting.

Height revised downward to 36.4M (41M including mech. penthouse).
 

Back
Top