Amare
Senior Member
John Tory told them it was coming, i'm glad there's still 1 sucker who still believes him.
Toronto Fairview Mall Redevelopment | 180.2m | 52s | Cadillac Fairview | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Undead
Senior Member
Yesterday:
droyces
Active Member
It depends upon the ICE car in the comparison. Getting an extra 200 kilometers used to cost around 8-9 dollars. Then when gas rates went up so did the price at the Tesla superchargers so that the same 200 kilometers now costs about 15-16 dollars. Elon blames Measurements Canada. I blame Elon. And keep in mind that those 200 kilometers in the winter might actually be only 100 or so kilometers.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Attended the in-person OPEN HOUSE tonight in Emerald City...
artyboy123
Senior Member
absuredmadness
New Member
artyboy123
Senior Member
Storey changed from 58, 48 and 38-storey to 52, 45, 38-storey. Height changed from 197.40m, 162.80m & 132.80m to 180.20m, 154.40m & 133.40m. The total unit count was reduced from 1416 units to 1323 units. Finally, the total car parking increased 991 parking to 1062 parking.
AIC: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...nt/application-details/?id=5086946&pid=437880
New rendering updated. Taken from arch plan via Rezoning submission.
AIC: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...nt/application-details/?id=5086946&pid=437880
New rendering updated. Taken from arch plan via Rezoning submission.
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Light
Superstar
Ok lets have a look at this...........
From the Cover Letter:
Statistical comparison:
More to come!
From the Cover Letter:
Statistical comparison:
More to come!
Northern Light
Superstar
This next bit, from the Planning Report addendum is quite interesting in that it shows the City's concern and the Applicant's response:
Pause for comment: I'm 100% with the City on both of the concerns expressed above and happy to see them thinking this way.
But I digress, the response from USI below:
There's still more of this in the Planning Report, but I'll stop there.
I really like the City's take here, very thoughtful, the right sorts of questions and ambitions.
CF's response is not entirely satisfactory. Too many excuses. Including a no-build clause that is, to my understanding, tied to one particular retailer........
Their imagining the retention of the mall, more or less as-is, in the longer term does not represent either the community's or CF's best interests as far as I'm concerned.
I would not quibble with keeping some sort of mall here, but not the current siting at layout.
If desired, I'd rather see it go to 3 storeys of retail, with a smaller footprint by about 1/3; and sited in such a way as to allow the Parkway Forest to Godstone connection; and full east-west public roads connecting that road to Don Mills.
I could see the mall existing on both sides of said road, and connecting both underneath and on top, while allowing the road though.
Insufficient imagination and ambition here.
Pause for comment: I'm 100% with the City on both of the concerns expressed above and happy to see them thinking this way.
But I digress, the response from USI below:
There's still more of this in the Planning Report, but I'll stop there.
I really like the City's take here, very thoughtful, the right sorts of questions and ambitions.
CF's response is not entirely satisfactory. Too many excuses. Including a no-build clause that is, to my understanding, tied to one particular retailer........
Their imagining the retention of the mall, more or less as-is, in the longer term does not represent either the community's or CF's best interests as far as I'm concerned.
I would not quibble with keeping some sort of mall here, but not the current siting at layout.
If desired, I'd rather see it go to 3 storeys of retail, with a smaller footprint by about 1/3; and sited in such a way as to allow the Parkway Forest to Godstone connection; and full east-west public roads connecting that road to Don Mills.
I could see the mall existing on both sides of said road, and connecting both underneath and on top, while allowing the road though.
Insufficient imagination and ambition here.
Last edited:
3Dementia
Senior Member
Thank you for those superb massing studies... look forward to seeing HPA architecture here soon.
Northern Light
Superstar
Well................
CF has managed to get a Refusal Report on this one, to the next meeting of NYCC.
There's a whole bunch going on here...........
The City is very much on about the overall masterplan and the phasing thereof. A lot concern that there is not enough detail or certainty as how the site will function in various interim states over decade or longer build out.
Staff not liking the absence of an improved connection to the Don Mills Subway Station. They would like to see both a better above-grade connection, but also a PATH-like connection to the station underground.
Some specific language here on the ring road concept:
Staff also want to see a better developed concept of a road grid in the Masterplan with finer level of granularity:
As it pertains to the first ZBA buildings, the City has some thoughts:
The City is having none of what CF is selling on parkland:
My take: The City's concerns are right on point. The plan as envisioned is problematic to be charitable. The roads plan, the relationship to Don Mills Station and the parkland are all poorly thought out.
Needs a comprehensive re-think.
CF has managed to get a Refusal Report on this one, to the next meeting of NYCC.
There's a whole bunch going on here...........
The City is very much on about the overall masterplan and the phasing thereof. A lot concern that there is not enough detail or certainty as how the site will function in various interim states over decade or longer build out.
Staff not liking the absence of an improved connection to the Don Mills Subway Station. They would like to see both a better above-grade connection, but also a PATH-like connection to the station underground.
Some specific language here on the ring road concept:
Staff also want to see a better developed concept of a road grid in the Masterplan with finer level of granularity:
As it pertains to the first ZBA buildings, the City has some thoughts:
The City is having none of what CF is selling on parkland:
My take: The City's concerns are right on point. The plan as envisioned is problematic to be charitable. The roads plan, the relationship to Don Mills Station and the parkland are all poorly thought out.
Needs a comprehensive re-think.
11th
Senior Member
Sometimes I am confused by what is the optimal form of densification.
While it is nice to have an animated street with street-front retail, we are also shown examples of moving pedestrain activity away from arterials as ideal.
These examples are also from places in Europe where we seem to try to emulate.
I think the question is should arterials function as "main streets".
While it is nice to have an animated street with street-front retail, we are also shown examples of moving pedestrain activity away from arterials as ideal.
These examples are also from places in Europe where we seem to try to emulate.
I think the question is should arterials function as "main streets".
xy3
Active Member
The height decrease and unit reduction is silly, but parking increase makes sense in this location.
Northern Light
Superstar
Update, the Refusal Report never did pass NYCC, instead it was referred back to staff.
But CF and its team are certainly being put through their paces here, and a whole of City staff time is being consumed re-writing this one.
We learn this from a Report to the next meeting of NYCC which provides an update on this proposal:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-247044.pdf
This one is targeted to return to NYCC on October 29th, 2024 at which time, it seems likely to pass its first hurdles.
****
Since we last caught up w/this one........these are the meeting staff and the applicant have had (workshops)
There was also a limited consultation with local residents:
But CF and its team are certainly being put through their paces here, and a whole of City staff time is being consumed re-writing this one.
We learn this from a Report to the next meeting of NYCC which provides an update on this proposal:
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-247044.pdf
This one is targeted to return to NYCC on October 29th, 2024 at which time, it seems likely to pass its first hurdles.
****
Since we last caught up w/this one........these are the meeting staff and the applicant have had (workshops)
There was also a limited consultation with local residents:
xy3
Active Member
Consultation with local residents is unnessasary and only serves to slow down the approval/building process, adding more costs for the buyer