80 Bloor Street West | 259.60m | 78s | Krugarand | Giannone Petricone

Second thought

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 17, 2020
Messages
23
Reaction score
25
Yes I was there and spoke in favour of the project. The attendees were mostly in their 60s and 70s and ‘fearful of the noise and congestion which would destroy Yorkville.’ Even though this tower is essentially Bay & Bloor. I had the sense the planners felt personally disrespected by the height, sigh...
 

Bjays92

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
74
Reaction score
92
I really like the previous render for this site. Hard to judge too much based just on the drawings, but ultimately this is probably a step in the right direction when it comes to getting this, and 1200 bay built!
 

cogito ergo

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
129
Reaction score
64
Location
T.O.
With less than 12M distance from the PL at 1200 Bay, I doubt it is a "step in the right direction"..
unless the two developers join forces and coordinate their respective applications..
 

ProjectEnd

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
9,725
Reaction score
12,187
Because 80 Bloor is farther ahead in the process, it's 1200 Bay that has to play ball with them - hence the suggestion of a combined application in their PJR. Krugarand is under no obligation to work with them - they've already secured their 11.5m east property setback.
 

steveve

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 1, 2009
Messages
5,795
Reaction score
4,368
Location
Toronto

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,165
Reaction score
428
More rectangle boxes in the sky ! I was really looking forward to the last rendering to be developed ! Just to Please another development !
 

Northern Light

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
6,964
Reaction score
7,792
Location
Toronto/EY
Request for Direction Report to the next TEYCC mtg on July 16.


Seeks approval of Council to oppose at LPAT

From said report are staff's objections:

This report recommends that Council direct the City Solicitor, together with appropriate City staff, to oppose the current proposal at the LPAT. The proposal does not provide any office replacement, does not provide an acceptable parkland dedication, does not transition in height and does not have an acceptable built form. The proposal does not conform to the Growth Plan (2019), is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), does not conform with the Official Plan, The Downtown Plan (OPA 406), SASP 211, OPA 231, and OPA 352, and does not adequately address the City's Tall Building Design Guidelines, or the intent of those guidelines.
 

Top