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

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,166
Reaction score
13,308
^ it's because 170 spadina likely indicated that they wanted to proceed regardless, and the appropriate intensification wasn't world's away from the proposed. Here they are going to be going from 41 storeys to more like 12 storeys - and the developer is actively trying to offload the property.
 

bilked

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 13, 2013
Messages
1,589
Reaction score
8,363
Yes that’s a pretty good reading as to what the Board seems to be signalling. But if you’re going to send read-between-the-lines signals, why not just say it? Surely prospective purchasers would appreciate the clarity.

Also wondering if this can be brought into an assembly with next door to do something more ambitious to front the new park space.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,166
Reaction score
13,308
I wouldn't be surprised if Great Gulf brings it into their little assembly ongoing on the block - especially since they just lost the TPA lot on the block to a new public park that they were expecting to be able to develop. I believe they already own the heritage warehouse to the west.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,068
Reaction score
26,003
Location
by the Humber
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.
As they have quoted the City's design guidelines with respect to stepbacks, etc., I think it's pretty clear that whoever develops here will have to respect those to get approval… so yeah, around a dozen storeys on this small lot is about the most someone can expect here (unless it's combined with more land).

42
 

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
3,707
Reaction score
7,410
Location
Turanna
Update:


March, 2019
The project was refinanced in Q1 of 2019. The development team has been working with a potential buyer of the site.
 

neuhaus

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
1,447
Reaction score
604
Location
Toronto
Sounds like the Rhed/Terrelonge curse is still alive and well on this property.
Nothing has progressed at 579 Wellington West and 3 Peel Avenue either and it has been 8 years!
 

ChesterCopperpot

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 4, 2012
Messages
3,955
Reaction score
5,875
Location
Toronto
Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square. It now includes the brick building at 355 Adelaide.

https://gotodevelopments.com/pms/project/Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square

The rendering is throwing me a bit because it doesn't seem to even reference the proposal at 101 Spadina

5SHQ4e1.jpg
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,068
Reaction score
26,003
Location
by the Humber
Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square. It now includes the brick building at 355 Adelaide.

https://gotodevelopments.com/pms/project/Go-To Spadina Adelaide Square

The rendering is throwing me a bit because it doesn't seem to even reference the proposal at 101 Spadina

5SHQ4e1.jpg
Based on that image (not promising), it must also include 101 Spadina, which I believe has been killed by the City's plan to turn the Green P lot into a park. I assume that we are seeing a proposed land swap here, moving the park to the southeast corner of Spadina and Adelaide, and consolidating the buildable land behind it. I hope we're only looking at a massing plan here… but yuck, those half-bricked-over balconies look like a suburban tenement in the making. Horrible.

42
 

Yegger

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
700
Reaction score
1,040
Location
Downtown
I'm all for more pocket parks in the neighbourhood. Between this park and the one proposed at Richmond and John, I like the direction the city is going.
 

ferusian

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2019
Messages
403
Reaction score
2,468
355 ADELAIDE ST W
Ward 10 - Tor & E.York District


Development Applications

Proposal for a 50-storey mixed-use building comprised of 7900.21 square metres of non-residential floor area and 24,704.31 square metres of residential gross floor area. A total of 293 residential dwelling units are proposed.

The rezoning application includes 46 Charlotte St & 355-359 Adelaide St W.
 
Last edited:

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
16,157
Reaction score
34,433
Location
Davenport
355 Adelaide W is a pretty nice looking brick warehouse building so hopefully whatever happens here can incorporate it respectfully. The rendering a few posts up probably wasn't too serious, but from that angle, it looked like it was just thoughtlessly engulfed into the new podium.
 

Top