Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte

They are requesting rezoning. They intend to start the process all over again.

The capacity noted on the liquor license application is actually greater than what the number of residents is likely to be.
 
gristle said:
They are requesting rezoning. They intend to start the process all over again.

The capacity noted on the liquor license application is actually greater than what the number of residents is likely to be.
Click to expand...

well I hope all the purchasers at Thompson residences are aware that the rooftop pool and bar will not be exclusive for residents, that is for sure
 
From what I understand, Freed intends to retain ownership of the rooftop portion of the building.
 
carturo15 said:
well I hope all the purchasers at Thompson residences are aware that the rooftop pool and bar will not be exclusive for residents, that is for sure
Click to expand...

When I was looking at the units here I was told by the sales staff that the rooftop pool will be used by the Thompson Hotel for special events and bookings and will be closed to residents on occasions.
I don't think individual guests of the hotel will be walking across the street to use the pool when the hotel has a pool of its own (though much smaller).
 
Automation Gallery said:
Pile drivers on location....foundation has commenced
Click to expand...

No Pile Drivers on site. Never were any. Shoring machines have been on site for weeks, and have almost finished. Tie back machine was delivered yesterday. Excavation has commenced. Generally commencement of foundations follows excavation, not other way around.....
 
AHK said:
No Pile Drivers on site. Never were any. Shoring machines have been on site for weeks, and have almost finished. Tie back machine was delivered yesterday. Excavation has commenced. Generally commencement of foundations follows excavation, not other way around.....
Click to expand...

Well pardon my english.....for not understanding the difference between a Pile-Driver and a Tie-Back machine and foundations and excavations:eek:
 
AG - Understand that the differences between shoring and pile driving from a visual perspective are not all that great - but quite different processes, with very substantial differences in their impacts on the adjoining properties - but tie-back machines as compared to shoring / pile driving equipment - those really are quite different from each other.......

Now what is new in the hood is the Library District condominiums - crane base has been installed over the past couple of days - so the new year should bring really visible signs of progress....
 
If this one is still in being appealed, how can they even construct anything? Can they only build up to the approved level until the appeal process is over and final heights are defined?
 
The shoring and foundations were being done based on what is 'as of right' according to the previous zoning - the same as for the Quartz and Spectra excavations and foundation work being done by Concord Adex - proceeding on basic as of right work while the rezoning / appeals processes are underway.

As it turned out, for 621 King the Ontario Divisional Court ruling on December 7 was in favour of Freed Developments. The appeal by the City against the OMB ruling which allowed Freed the additional density / height on the Thompson Residences project they were seeking was rejected. I have not heard whether the City will be appealing the OMB ruling any further - but I kind of suspect not.
 
In this fiscal climate, I doubt that the city will appeal. Unfortunately, this is one more blow to the city having control over its own planning process, or having that process mature. It is an immense step backwards. Only in Ontario does such a board exist. With it, developers have the opportunity to undermine rational city planning while in pursuit of maximizing their profit - even if it is ultimately at the expense of the city.
 
gristle said:
Only in Ontario does such a board exist. With it, developers have the opportunity to undermine rational city planning while in pursuit of maximizing their profit - even if it is ultimately at the expense of the city.
Click to expand...

That is not exactly true - although the media plays that role up quite often. Most other provinces have municipal appeal boards with somewhat differing powers then the OMB as do many states. Many other states do not have appeal boards that specialize in land - use planning and those appeals get tied up in the courts, so be careful what you wish for as that would be a far messier process. In some states local elected politicians have no role whatsoever in the planning process ( I.e. Massachusetts removed most authority from the Boston city council and turned it over to two appointed bodies). The OMB provides tension in the planning system to ensure planning decisions are made based on public policy and on evidence rather then local politics - more emphasis is placed on evidence brought forward by city planners and other planning consultants, architects, engineers etc (expert witnesses with professional designations and experience) than whatever the local councillor happens to think or whatever local political pressures exist to influence councillor decisions (i'm not suggesting that was a factor in this specific case - i'm speaking in the broader sense).

all decisions made by the board must be consistent with provincial policy (and to some extent, municipal policy - however municipal policy OPs and zoning are also supposed to be consitent with provincial policy, yet much of toronto's zoning hasn't been updated in 40 years) obviously any specific decision can be heavily debated, but broadly speaking the OMB exists because all citizens have the right to a fair and equitable appeal process on land use decisions and for better or for worse municipal councils don't always have the best track record in terms of evidence supported and policy supported land use decisions.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top