Spadina Adelaide Square | 158.6m | 48s | Go-To | Cusimano

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
3,778
Reaction score
7,677
Location
Turanna
Update:
July, 2017
An initial Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pre-hearing was held on March 22, 2017, where few people attended the pre-hearing. A second OMB pre-hearing was held on June 30, 2017. Mediation discussions with the City have begun. A full OMB Hearing date has been set for November 7 – 18, 2017 in the event the City of Toronto and the development team cannot agree on mediation prior to an OMB mediation date
 

good_times

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
29
Reaction score
12
If you were a planning director, and your unit is understaffed and overworked, why would you focus on projects where the developer is going to insist on going way over the zoned height/density no matter what, and then have it go to the OMB anyway when you can't come to an agreement? It's a waste of resources.

They won't support the height, and they definitely won't support the 5.5m rear setback or the 0m setbacks from Adelaide and Charlotte. This is already a tiny floorplate, I don't think they can shrink it any further and have it stand up. Will be interesting to see what comes out of mediation.
 

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
3,778
Reaction score
7,677
Location
Turanna
Reduced to 41 storeys:
upload_2017-8-17_13-39-39.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-8-17_13-39-39.png
    upload_2017-8-17_13-39-39.png
    126.7 KB · Views: 723

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,366
Reaction score
13,925
142m now, and has lost the single, albeit very small, retail unit that was originally planned at ground level.

Also, the parking system planned here is rather unique. And complicated. I would not be a fan of it if I had to park a car in it.
 

DonValleyRainbow

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
2,867
Reaction score
1,918
Location
Kay Gardner Beltline Trail

142m now, and has lost the single, albeit very small, retail unit that was originally planned at ground level.

Also, the parking system planned here is rather unique. And complicated. I would not be a fan of it if I had to park a car in it.

142.25m, rounding up to.3. This has been updated in The 100m List, falling to spot 179.

Just a request: please post heights with changes like this to a tenth of a metre. If it is on the metre, make it "xxx.0". Thanks!
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,971
Reaction score
1,006
This building has a simple but affective looking facade. I seen a couple of coloured rendering
images. I was wondering when this building going to start?
 

AHK

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 12, 2010
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
4,431
LPAT Decision Released - Appeal by the developer has been denied. From the document:


CONCLUSION

[120] The Tribunal prefers the evidence and submissions of the City, DevGreat Inc.

and 1708305 Ontario Inc. that this project fails to conform to the built form policies of

sections 3.1 of the OP and the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. This conclusion has

been informed, in part, by the TBDG and the King-Spadina UDG.

[121] With no density standards, acceptable built form is established through standards

for height, setbacks and stepbacks. This proposed development is well in excess of the

height standard and has not fully achieved the setbacks and setbacks which were

established to reflect the prevailing character of the buildings in this part of the city.


[122] The built form has limited contribution to the public realm and does not serve a

purpose beyond the development site itself. The Tribunal agrees with the City’s

witnesses that the provision of 4 m between the wall of the proposed building and the

edge of the curb on Adelaide Street and the 5 m on Charlotte Street is a very limited

contribution to the public realm considering the degree of intensification.

[123] The Tribunal acknowledges that this development is not consistent with the

position of Toronto Council as explicitly provided for with the direction provided to City

staff on April 26, 2017. As heard throughout this hearing, not all sites are appropriate

tower sites. The Tribunal finds that this proposal would lead to an overdevelopment that

is not reflective of the immediate area. This site is more appropriately suited to a more

modest building which would provide for an appropriate level of intensification for this

small site.

[124] Having found that the proposal does not conform to the City’s OP, the Tribunal

must dismiss the appeals.

ORDER

[125] The Tribunal orders that these appeals are dismissed.

“L.M. Bruce”

L. M. BRUCE

MEMBER
 

bilked

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
1,645
Reaction score
8,941
After all the money invested by both sides into this process, can the OMB not provide more guidance than “a more modest building would provide for an appropriate level of intesification”? Doesn’t this just leave the parties debating “how long is a rope”?

I much prefer decisions such as 170 Spadina where the OMB actually provided some clear insight into what level of intensification was appropriate for the site. The developer was then able to proceed fairly quickly with the benefit of that guidance.

It’s hard to imagine that these zero sum outcomes really serve the interests of either side.
 

Top