Toronto 670 Progress Avenue | 171.3m | 54s | Fieldgate | Arcadis

The proposal says 48 floors but the render shows a 56 floor tower. The second tower was supposed to be 38 floors but the render shows 44. Maybe these are going to be taller than suggested.
 
The proposal says 48 floors but the render shows a 56 floor tower. The second tower was supposed to be 38 floors but the render shows 44. Maybe these are going to be taller than suggested.
Not sure where you're getting that. The stats I'm looking at show heights of 60, 48, 37, 16, 16, and 8 storeys
 
Ugh? where you getting that stat for the 60 storey?
From the architectural plans, project data sheet, and all other supporting documentation:
Screen Shot 2019-12-12 at 10.59.37 AM.png
 
No new renderings are updated in the database; however, the unit & parking counts and tower storey count are changed.

The building storey count previously was 60, 48, 38, 37, 28, 16, 16, 8 changed to 54, 43, 40, 39, 37, 18, 18. The total unit count changed from 3039 to 3105. The previous parking count went from 1654 to 1552.
 
Request for Direction Report, seeking to oppose this one at OLT to the next meeting of SCC:


Of note, the City takes no real issue w/the height here.

The City's objections:

- Insufficient office and commercial space

- Require provision for cycle tracks

- Landscape drawings lack sufficient detail on healthy soil volumes for trees

- Podium heights are an issue as are setbacks and stepbacks

- Submitted shadow studies show non-compliance with guidelines; will require smaller tower floorplates and removal of wrap-around balconies.

Amongst other things.
 
New information is updated in the database. The overall unit count changed from 3105 units to 3413 units. Total building height changed from 166.80 m, 138.80 m, 127.80 m, 127.70 m, 115.50 m, 63.80 m, 63.70 m to 171.30m, 141.35m, 132.95m, 130.50m, 118.85m, 66.60m & 66.15m. Finally, the total parking space count changed from 1552 parking to 1381 parking.

Information taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning submission.
 
@Art Tsai tips us off in his above post that there have been material changes here, so I went investigating to learn more about them.

I will post from the Cover Letter below, but want to first note that this is not a settlement offer per se, but a move to bring the proposal closer to something Fieldgate feels is a good negotiating position to hold as mediation begins with the City shortly.

1667867669860.png


1667867688528.png

1667867718432.png


Now, from the Arch. Plans:

1667867826620.png


1667867901034.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMT
such a mish mash of different patterns and textures on what are underneath just plain glass boxes once again. no soul here.
 
I live in the area, there's a school and other small businesses in the area that will get demolished? I'm pretty sure if they are planning to build all of this? what will happen to them?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4447.jpg
    IMG_4447.jpg
    903.5 KB · Views: 69
This one has undergone a full resubmission which is available in the AIC.

However, it is also the subject of a report to next week's meeting of City Council, through which many of the docs are linked.

High level link:


I will not directly link the Arch. Plans here as there are 8 links, just click the above for access to them.

@Paclo is flagged.

From the main report, we have a statistical comparison:

1715870216940.png

1715870251038.png


1715870282109.png


1715870323368.png

1715870349844.png


Render:

1715870422868.png


1715870466589.png
 

Back
Top