Toronto Four Eleven King Condominiums | 149.04m | 45s | Great Gulf | KPMB

according to NRU, this has reached a settlement with the city. Height has been reduced to 44 floors and 145m. Section 37 goes towards the YMCA on Brant Street.
 
It's ok for 45 storeys.
But,will they keep the current design of the building ?
I hope they will because the current design is pretty .
 
^I agree with u my friend. they should not change the design. + the city should have reduced it to 165 - 170m. 145 is very short. how tall are the buildings in the neighborhood? will it stand out among other buildings in the neighborhood?
 
innsertnamehere said:
according to NRU, this has reached a settlement with the city. Height has been reduced to 44 floors and 145m. Section 37 goes towards the YMCA on Brant Street.
Click to expand...
Ah, reporting on the results of the OMB hearing on Feb 21. I suppose it became a ratification meeting for the settlement. I'll look forward to the full decision being posted.
enrigue8 said:
It's ok for 45 storeys.
But,will they keep the current design of the building ?
I hope they will because the current design is pretty .
Click to expand...
Will it be the same style? We'll have to see; the last version was 11 storeys taller, and besides a shorter height, we don't know what stepbacks the building will be required to adhere to, maximum GFA, etc. It could end up being anything from simply lopped off 11 storeys sooner but the same design otherwise, all the way to completely different. Most probably something in between…
ushahid said:
^I agree with u my friend. they should not change the design. + the city should have reduced it to 165 - 170m. 145 is very short. how tall are the buildings in the neighborhood? will it stand out among other buildings in the neighborhood?
Click to expand...
It looks like this may end up 2 metres shorter than Bisha at the other end of the same block, unless the 145 metres does not include the mechanical penthouse. 357 King West, just north of Bisha, will be about the same height too.

The City had wanted buildings to be shorter as of Spadina, because they're significantly shorter on the other side of Spadina. Looks like that policy is dead, as the OMB has not seen the importance of the gradual step-down in heights in the same light.

…anyway, 145 metres is only very short if all you are is a height fetishist, and aren't interested in anything else about how actual cities develop.

42
 
The OMB has single highhandedly been destroying neighborhoods in this city for numerous years, and this simply has to come to an end. Does anyone know when the province's review of the organization is due to be released?
 
Amare said:
The OMB has single highhandedly been destroying neighborhoods in this city for numerous years, and this simply has to come to an end. Does anyone know when the province's review of the organization is due to be released?
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you: The OMB has single highhandedly been saving neighborhoods in this city for numerous years, and this simply mustn't come to an end.
 
Man, do the issues surrounding the OMB ever get partisan, either completely on one side or the other. Is it truly that difficult to see that there are both benefits and issues that are created from OMB decisions? As is often the case, a middle ground, pragmatic, non-emotional type of regulatory reform would be great. A refinement of the regulations that guide OMB decisions, if you will. That will both guide and approve development growth, while being sensitive to locational contexts. Clearly local groups are not viewing the issues of scarcity in a large enough, or forward thinking enough way, while it seems the OMB at times can overstep or create unforeseen precedents that may be somewhat too high/large. Am I missing anything here?
 
Last edited:
The redevelopment proposal now before the Board reflects a settlement between the parties and is a substantial revision to the proposal that initially formed part of this appeal. The revised proposal is to construct a podium and tower on the subject property with a mix of commercial retail and residential uses that would include, among other elements:
  • a. a maximum height of 145 metres (“m”);
  • b. a maximum of 41,300 square metres (“sq m”) of gross floor area on the lot, of which a minimum of 1,460.70 sq m would be non-residential uses;
  • c. a minimum of 10% of the dwelling units on the lot having three or more bedrooms; a minimum of 1.5 sq m of indoor residential amenity space per dwelling unit and a minimum of 0.9 sq m of outdoor residential amenity space per dwelling unit on the lot.
Click to expand...

[12] On consent of the parties, the Board allows the appeal in part, and generally on the basis of the Draft Zoning By-Law Amendment entered into evidence as Exhibit 6.

[13] The Board withholds its Order approving the Zoning By-Law Amendment until the pre-conditions set out in Attachment 1 are satisfied.
Click to expand...
 
Urban-Affair said:
Man, do the issues surrounding the OMB ever get partisan, either completely on one side or the other. Is it truly that difficult to see that there are both benefits and issues that are created from OMB decisions? As is often the case, a middle ground, pragmatic, non-emotional type of regulatory reform would be great. A refinement of the regulations that guide OMB decisions, if you will. That will both guide and approve development growth, while being sensitive to locational contexts. Clearly local groups are not viewing the issues of scarcity in a large enough, or forward thinking enough way, while it seems the OMB at times can overstep or create unforeseen precedents that may be somewhat too high/large. Am I missing anything here?
Click to expand...

There definitely is a false impression of the OMB as saviours to a staff that fears height. This, of course, is not reality. Just look at all the cranes in the skyline. It's just never quite tall enough for some.

The OMB hasn't saved or destroyed anything. They are just one cog on the wheel.

Zoning needs to be overhauled. It needs to be more defined and less interpretive. That should keep all parties; the OMB, planners, council and, developers from overstepping or creating unforeseen precedents.



I find 145 metres still on the high side for this transitional block in particular to what planners originally envisioned for the Entertainment District. Now, it's acceptable.
 
I dont think these renders have been posted in the past.
I think these renders are new. If they're new, i think the tower will be very ordinary.
The last concept was so beautiful .

preview-78eba108bff25763235119d50b37054b.jpg



preview-3b766cc1f50ff17d980e1c4788739836.jpg



https://www.terracap.ca/portfolio/415-king-st-w-2
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top