Toronto Lillian Park | 84.73m | 28s | Collecdev | Kohn Shnier

Minor Variance for a height increase to the mechanical penthouse of the east tower has been approved:

To modify the east tower of the redevelopment plan approved under Site-specific By-laws 442-2016 and 443-2016 by increasing the height of the mechanical penthouse and by constructing a parapet wall and roof guards to accommodate a rooftop outdoor amenity space.
Click to expand...

Equipment used for the functional operation of a building is permitted to exceed the maximum height of that building by not more than 6 m. The additional mechanical equipment on the east tower of the development will exceed the maximum building height by 9.0 m.
Click to expand...

Specific structures (including parapets for a green roof) on the roof of a building are permitted to exceed the maximum height of that building by not more than 1.5 m. In this case, the parapet wall and roof guards to serve the roof top amenity area of the east tower of the development will exceed the maximum permitted building height by 1.9 m.
Click to expand...

Mechanical enclosures and roof parapets are permitted to exceed the maximum height of a building by 5 m. The additional mechanical equipment on the east tower of the development will exceed the maximum building height by 9.0 m.
Click to expand...

app.toronto.ca

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. As of July 30th, the Application Information Centre has...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca
 
177500
 
I'm mystified by the colour choice of the spandrel panels and precast. The lack of contrast between the two undermines the whole design.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
I'm mystified by the colour choice of the spandrel panels and precast. The lack of contrast between the two undermines the whole design.
Click to expand...
To each their own, I suppose! I find the opposite. I think these towers are so refreshing in contrast to many recent Toronto towers that try to add "contrast" and "variation" in every way possible including massing, window sizes, mullion colours, glazing systems, etc. and the end result is a jumbled mess in the sky. These towers I find clean and consistent and steady: a clear design intent executed competently. I also think the universal light colour reduces the perception of these being hulking masses -- they are large plates.
 
^^^ I'm not talking about variation "in every way possible" here. I'm talking about variation only in a colour/tonal contrast between the precast and spandrel panels. I think the design could've withstood that single, additional variation and I think it would've been more successful that way too.
 
Last edited:
condovo said:
^^^ I'm not talking about variation "in every way possible" here. I'm talking about variation only in a colour/tonal contrast between the precast and spandrel panels. I think the design could've withstood that single, additional variation and I think it would've been more successful that way too.
Click to expand...
I’ve looked again and I see your point now. The upper unglazed portions of these towers look good as the contrast remains strong. As they get filled in with the same colour of spandrel and mullion, the effect weakens.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top