Toronto Maverick | 154.53m | 49s | Empire | Arcadis

Not sure if this proposal is now defunt, I recall there were two applications involved here:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-42305.pdf

Now this seems to imply the city refused this incarnation of the applications.

Anyway the above indicates it'll go through to 323 King West, which would demolish 4/5 restaurants up to but not including "Fred's not here" ... one of these buildings is designated historical though.
 
taal said:
Not sure if this proposal is now defunt, I recall there were two applications involved here:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2012/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-42305.pdf

Now this seems to imply the city refused this incarnation of the applications.

Anyway the above indicates it'll go through to 323 King West, which would demolish 4/5 restaurants up to but not including "Fred's not here" ... one of these buildings is designated historical though.
Click to expand...


not defunct. board hearing in early-october.
 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rant-row-resists-condo-frenzy/article7285865/

Entertainment District’s restaurant row resists condo frenzy

GAYLE MACDONALD
The Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, Jan. 12 2013, 12:00 AM EST


The controversy over high-rise condo development in the heart of Toronto’s Entertainment District’s so-called “restaurant row†erupted this week as the developer faced off against concerned restaurateurs and residents in tense hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board.

In a last-ditch effort to quash the 47-storey tower slated to be built at 321-323 King St. West, (between Peter and Widmer Streets), restaurant owners and worried citizens – led by Kit Kat eatery owner Al Carbone – appeared before the OMB in a series of meetings to argue that the 304-unit project will erode the integrity and quirky vibe of the strip.

“Approval of this project will cause a domino effect as developers, who are sitting on valuable blocks of land, will seek to build the same sort of density,†says Mr. Carbone, whose Victorian-era building will be dwarfed by the nearby condo. “It sets a precedent that will ruin the heritage of this neighbourhood, a go-to tourist destination for 20-plus years.â€
Click to expand...

King Financial Holdings Ltd. owns the land at 321-323 King St. A few years ago, it asked the city for approval to build a 39-storey condo, but was turned down. After purchasing another parcel of land (the location of Fred’s Not Here restaurant) and making modifications to the development plan, the company got the nod. This time, to build the 47-storey tower, which will retain two of the existing Victorian-style facades.

Mr. Carbone says the fact that the facades will be rebuilt is a joke. “The bottom line is the entire building will be destroyed, and the restaurants that are there will no longer exist.â€
Click to expand...

Fabien Siebert, owner of Marcel’s Bistro and Le Saint Tropez, says the construction is a scourge on the strip, leaving business owners to grapple with noise, dust, debris, sewage backups, congestion, and a wind tunnel effect that is often strong enough to toss plates, even tables, on patios. “I’ve been around for 29 years so I know the street pretty well,†says Mr. Siebert. “And there are a lot of things that worry me. Deliveries [in the laneway behind restaurant row] are already a nightmare, and who wants to sit on a patio surrounded by hoarding? The flavour of the street is being hurt.â€

It’s not clear when the OMB will make its final decision on 321-323 King. But regardless of the outcome, Mr. Carbone intends to stick around and fight. “I’ll probably stay here until I’m broke,†he says. “I helped build the neighbourhood up, and now we’re at a crisis point. This issueis not only critical to our block, but to our city as a whole.â€
Click to expand...
 
this article is misleading. the project will be approved as-is. it has the support of planning staff and the councillor.
 
47-storey tower approved at the Board - settlement details include retention of 5 three-storey heritage facades and a s. 37 agreement for 10 affordable rental units for twenty years.
 
This looks very interesting, If I'm not mistaken, I saw mention of some stone on the exterior.
 
Last edited:
Resembles a rehashed Indx tower. Predictable considering both are designed by the same firm, I can visualize the poorly executed spandrel already. It's rather unfortunate to have consecutive P+S designs on this strip. Restaurant row to become eyesore row?
 
I think the developer has stated that they will be staying as restaurants. It will probably be more like this though:

Boston pizza
East side Mario's
Kelsey's
Swiss chalet
 
And a Starbucks. Don't forget the Starbucks. Truly sad. This is one of the very few large buildings in Toronto that I wasn't happy about. I don't see how the same restaurants can move back in there.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight...inst_the_condo_tide_along_restaurant_row.html

Fighting against the condo tide along Restaurant Row


What he takes issue with is the threatened transformation of this block of King Street, which he says will remake it from the vibrant and historically distinct “Restaurant Row” of brick-fronted, two and three-storey heritage buildings to a corridor of towers rising above a windswept canyon of coffee cup tumbleweed.

Vaughan says that won’t happen.

Al says the precedent has been set.
Click to expand...
 
Council, not planners, are the ‘decider’

I was at the OMB hearing for the 47-storey condo tower approved for 333 King, west of the Kit Kat restaurant. What your story didn’t mention was why those developers were persuaded to buy 321 King St. The planning department was worried that there would not be enough “tower separation distance” with a potential office tower now proposed to be built on the heritage properties to the east — the ones that Adam Vaughan vows are protected.

Heritage as a low priority for city planning staff, who are happy to support projects that only preserve facades and nothing more. Their bias is towards facilitating development and intensification. The views of the local community and of councillors mean little to the arrogant “experts” in planning who think that they know better than the people they are supposed to serve.

Council ultimately has control over policy and the planning department — but rarely do we here any criticism of the planners. If the City’s planners are in favour of something, council has to hire outside planners for an OMB hearing, the chances of the OMB refusing a condo development are even slimmer. Council, the planners, is supposed to the “decider.”

Councillors rightly complain about the OMB, but the OMB is only half the problem. Planning is not a science and planners are not licensed, like “real” professions. What is good planning or appropriate or will make a beautiful city is all highly subjective.

It is time that the planning department undergo a major reform and change in their culture and attitude toward us non-planners, particularly the ones we elect.
Brian Graff, Toronto

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/lett.../05/council_not_planners_are_the_decider.html
 
Last edited:
I dunno. I think it's a poorly written, fairly incoherent letter itself. Curious logic, too. So what if planners aren't licenced? By Brian Graff's logic, oughtn't councillors be licensed and trained as well? To, you know, properly represent the people rather than, say, lie incessantly, smoke crack and hang out with hoodlums? Maybe we ought to also license forum posting, too. Just to be thorough and make sure everyone gets in line.

The problem with reform of such entities is this: the nasty politicization of the process often entails a scenario where the remedy is worse than the problem it's intended to replace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top