sodapop
Active Member
i like how skinny the drawings look, i'm glad they are getting rid of this parking lot, its a waste of space.
Toronto Karma Condos | 165.8m | 50s | Lifetime | a—A
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Conrad Black
Senior Member
Community meeting to discuss the project. If you want this one to proceed come and make your voice heard.
Wednesday February 9, 2011
YMCA – 20 Grosvenor Street
Review of Plans: 6:30 PM
Community discussion: 7-9pm
Wednesday February 9, 2011
YMCA – 20 Grosvenor Street
Review of Plans: 6:30 PM
Community discussion: 7-9pm
jje1000
Senior Member
Is it me, or are we getting mostly boxy buildings these two months?
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
The City has guidelines for both tall buildings and mid-rises, which are both encouraged in the right location. Believe it or not, but it's not the City Planners that have a fear of shadows, it's the residents who live or use a park/walk along a street near the lands subject to development applications. Planning staff have to take those concerns, amongst many others, into consideration when reviewing applications. Height limits in zoning by-laws are not derived solely on shadow issues, but many factors including the context of the area and infrastructure capacities.
The City's Avenues and Mid-Rise Buildings Study actually addresses the exact thing you would love, 6-8 storey buildings along major streets.
dilman
Banned
it's you.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
I dont think much thought went into this one. Just another ugly apartment building!
urbandreamer
recession proof
^Is Burka, P+S, Kirkor project architects?
If so, I'd agree with your post.
Thank god you're dead wrong!
If so, I'd agree with your post.
Thank god you're dead wrong!
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Thank you so much for posting this! I am going to go, though I can't make it there until the last hour and a bit.
jje1000
Senior Member
Care to elaborate?
HHC
Active Member
Please don't be blue or green glass. For the love of god please and I'll be satisfied!!! Spare me architects of Toronto, just this once?
I can already picture what it's going to look like.
So predictable.
I can already picture what it's going to look like.
So predictable.
Glass colour has a lot to do with what the developer decides they want to spend. Green tinted glass typically means the least expensive option has been chosen, and seldom is the architect's choice.
42
42
greenleaf
Senior Member
There were about 100 people at the meeting tonight. People seemed to think the design was decent, although not terribly exciting.
Many were upset about shadowing as green space in the area has suffered or already died off due to Murano coming onto the street. Other concerns that were echoed were lack of bike parking, lack of 3-bedroom units, space issues with the loading dock, and general overpowering of the street. I think people generally thought it was good to put a building there, but that something shorter would be more acceptable.
Peter Clewes spoke much about how the heritage building was incorporated and how the proposed building was set back on Grenville to allow the heritage building to be seen from Yonge Street.
Many were upset about shadowing as green space in the area has suffered or already died off due to Murano coming onto the street. Other concerns that were echoed were lack of bike parking, lack of 3-bedroom units, space issues with the loading dock, and general overpowering of the street. I think people generally thought it was good to put a building there, but that something shorter would be more acceptable.
Peter Clewes spoke much about how the heritage building was incorporated and how the proposed building was set back on Grenville to allow the heritage building to be seen from Yonge Street.
Redroom Studios
Senior Member
holy box batman, more off the rack crap
Ramako
Moderator
I was at the meeting tonight. There was a little over 100 people. Most were middle-aged or older, and had lived in the neighbourhood for many years.
The major concerns brought up were: (i) the shadow that would be cast on 18 Grenville; (ii) that the lack of parking spots would cause people to park illegally in the adjacent lane-way which is already overused and unmaintained; (iii) that the open public space in front of the tower is vaguely conceived and will invite illegal parking and male prostitution; and (iv) that the proposal is not adequately sensitive to the on site heritage building.
With respect to the lack of parking, a few residents (one of which I suspect was a well known UT'er) pointed out that there was ample parking available for rent in their buildings. With respect to the poor maintenance of the lane-way, Clewes argued that development of that lot would create greater stewardship of the lane-way out of sheer necessity. He also noted the potential for the lane-way to be upgraded into a more vibrant public space. In fact the lobby of the tower is planned to wrap around to the east side of the property so as to animate the lane-way. Clewes generally did a fine job of both explaining the details of the project and making a case for increased density in downtown. The developers sat off to the side and said nothing.
I very much got the sense that the people there didn't consider residents of Murano to be true members of the community.
The major concerns brought up were: (i) the shadow that would be cast on 18 Grenville; (ii) that the lack of parking spots would cause people to park illegally in the adjacent lane-way which is already overused and unmaintained; (iii) that the open public space in front of the tower is vaguely conceived and will invite illegal parking and male prostitution; and (iv) that the proposal is not adequately sensitive to the on site heritage building.
With respect to the lack of parking, a few residents (one of which I suspect was a well known UT'er) pointed out that there was ample parking available for rent in their buildings. With respect to the poor maintenance of the lane-way, Clewes argued that development of that lot would create greater stewardship of the lane-way out of sheer necessity. He also noted the potential for the lane-way to be upgraded into a more vibrant public space. In fact the lobby of the tower is planned to wrap around to the east side of the property so as to animate the lane-way. Clewes generally did a fine job of both explaining the details of the project and making a case for increased density in downtown. The developers sat off to the side and said nothing.
I very much got the sense that the people there didn't consider residents of Murano to be true members of the community.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
That's good to hear that this project was generally well received. Hustlers still work that area? I thought they moved on in the late 90's/early 2000's.