Toronto St Lawrence Condos at 158 Front | 91.44m | 26s | Cityzen | a—A

nfitz said:
There's an announcement from the local neighbourhood association that there's City of Toronto community meeting about the application on January 16th in the evening:
http://www.slna.ca/slna-news-pdfs/154 Front January 2012.pdf

It also notes that the application was amended to two 26-story towers in November, and that in December the developer has appealed to the OMB.

OMB file number is PL111300 - http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL111300 - doesn't seem to be any other info yet.
Click to expand...

This was actually posted on December 31, see above, Post #144. They have also applied for a temporary surface car park on the site.
 
Most of it was posted already, but we left it because it adds info re: the OMB case.

42
 
Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to whether this 2x26s draft that's apparently been cooked up is a chop-down-plus-minor-edit of the 34s+24s proposal, or a complete reboot design-wise?
 
DSC said:
This was actually posted on December 31, see above, Post #144. They have also applied for a temporary surface car park on the site.
Click to expand...
Oops - missed that. Lost track a bit over the holidays, and for some reason I didn't notice when I checked to see if the info was there. Sorry.
 
Platform 27 said:
Anyone willing to hazard a guess as to whether this 2x26s draft that's apparently been cooked up is a chop-down-plus-minor-edit of the 34s+24s proposal, or a complete reboot design-wise?
Click to expand...

Revised as a simple twinset maybe? The earlier design made on wonder why residents in the taller tower would want to stop off, mid way up their building, and stroll across a topiary bridge ...
 
The revised proposal maintains almost the same density - the two towers are a bit shorter but they have eliminated the pocket park at the corner of Front and Frederick. The second attempt is, in my opinion, worse than the first as far as contributing to the area is concerned. As far as their profits go it is probably a toss-up!
 
DSC said:
The revised proposal maintains almost the same density - the two towers are a bit shorter but they have eliminated the pocket park at the corner of Front and Frederick. The second attempt is, in my opinion, worse than the first as far as contributing to the area is concerned. As far as their profits go it is probably a toss-up!
Click to expand...

So twin towers with a table-top "bridge" joining them at roof level? Cleweshenge?
 
The City has just added information on this project to their website at http://www.toronto.ca/planning/154_front.htm This page brings together all the various studies and applications and is a useful source. The planners for Toronto and East York have a page that lists most of the current major projects that are going through the approval process in their area, this is at http://www.toronto.ca/planning/south.htm
 
I like it -- if we're going to have boxes, let's at least stack a bunch of them.

It's interesting to see the bridging between the two towers. That wasn't a feature of any buildings I can think of in Toronto until recently, but now several in-progress projects seem to have that.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Nice.....After looking at those renderings, i dont understand all the trash-talk on this development:cool:
Click to expand...

As has been said ad nauseum above, the building is pretty nice the problem is the location. Read the comments from the DRP referenced on the new City page.

Buildings do not exist in a vacuum and you really need to look at both building and context.
 
Miscreant said:
I think it's a great area to build in. One of the lesser-known corners of downtown, one that I'd love to move into in the future.
Click to expand...

Yes, it IS a great area and most people living here really do want to see a new building on the Greyhound (and other vacant) sites BUT the new buildings ought to fit into the neighbourhood. Many new buildings in the area fit very well and improve the area (Vu and Berczy being good examples) other projects have not been as successful.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top