Toronto Clear Spirit | 131.36m | 40s | Cityscape | a—A

interchange42 said:
There is most definitely a vision for the DD - it just doesn't jive with yours Ganjavih. Anyway, I think there's there's a discussion about that on some other thread...

42
Click to expand...

I'm curious what this vision is. To me, having a vision means that there would be restrictions on the kind of development that can occur. My impression is that if giant glass towers are suitable for this district, then anything goes really. Are there any guidelines either from the city or Cityscape?
 
That is the vision: giant glass towers where the only thing determining height is economics. ;)
 
Rubbish. There are restrictions. There are always restrictions on the kind of development that can occur on any site in our city, including this one. The normal process has been going on for months between the developer, the City and the neighbours. The dance continues. When I spoke to one of ERA's principals at the Concrete Toronto launch recently he made it quite clear that the dance is under way and the due process continues.
 
Since we know the process allows for the replacement of Distillery buildings, who knows what else may or may not be permitted.
 
Such as? The nature of the proposed development has been a matter of public record for months. My discussion with this architect centered on the height of the two remaining towers.
 
Urban Shocker said:
If that were truly the case then the parking would be hidden underground and the east end of the Pure Spirit podium would be a casino.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt the parking would be hidden underground, since that would be much more expensive. You should suggest the casino to them! I bet they hadn't thought of that.

There are basically no restrictions on the development of the site, because the only restriction is zoning and the city has granted massive variances already.
 
The architect I spoke to, who is working on this project and dealing with the city, would probably be rolling around on the floor laughing uncontrollably if he heard your absurd fantasy scenario.
 
The casino? Yeah, that's a fantasy scenario. Why? Because it requires provincial approval! Ahaha.

But yes, the city has already relaxed pretty much every requirement related to scale and envelope.
 
I'd be interested to know specifically what restrictions and limitations the architects and developers have to contend with. I don't doubt there are some, but surely they are not 'that' limiting if they can build above stacked parking platforms and two massive highrises directly abutting a heritage landmark..?
 
If you buy into unimaginative2's too imaginative scenario that, "every developer has the right to make as much money as he possibly can, the city be damned!" underpins the planning process in our town that would be true, I guess. A casino would also be entirely in line with the fantastical imaginings of unimaginative2's fevered brow under those circumstances.

But that clearly isn't the case if the height of the two remaining condo buildings is a sticking point with the city, as I was told it was by an architect working on the development. It looks to me as though the city bureaucrats are doing exactly what one assumes they would do, in the dance with the developer over this project, so I don't see what their fellow-travellers on this board are getting so hyper about.
 
Now, settle down. A casino's obviously ridiculous since that's about the most regulated industry in the province. In terms of built form, please enlighten us on the manifold restrictions these developers faced beyond the basic building code. Obviously there are many restrictions that the city could choose to impose, but they have not done so.

Besides, I'm not even talking about the city. I'm talking about members of this board who would support any project designed by a certain handful of architects.
 
I'd have thought you'd be dancing in the streets at the prospect of shortie towers, architects discomforted by unimaginative bureaucrats, and design culture somewhat stymied by the City's restrictions.
 
Nope! You know what'd have me dancing in the streets? Not tearing down large parts of a national historic site at all! Not building condos at Yonge and the lake! Woo hoo!
 
Which, under the circumstances, would mean preserving an empty, windowless, brick hulk in order to prevent it from being reused as housing and retail, and maintaining a parking lot in order to thwart development of part of the waterfront for housing.
 
No, it would mean reusing the heritage building that's part of a national historic site by renovating and restoring it, rather than levelling it for a condo and parking garage. I've been inside renovated buildings of the exact same size and type as those barrel warehouses, and they're lovely. My father works in one. Get Barton Myers to design it; he has experience.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top