Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

gristle said:
Why would this be in front of the OMB if it hasn't even been officially submitted to the city - except for a community meeting?

From what I recall of one such meeting in 2009, the project was certainly not rejected by those who were present. In fact no one made any negative comments on it. If anything, aspects of the street level area and proposed green wall were met with positive comments.
Click to expand...

Yeah also being close to the core i doubt that height was an issue...i believe this one will be in the market soon and sell like hot cakes, to good of a location.
 
The OPA/ZBA applications were submitted to the City on January 22, 2009. Under the Planning Act applicants can appeal to the OMB if a decision has not been made within 120 days of receipt of the application by the City Clerk.
 
Wow, I think the slim profile of the tower really adds to its sense of height.

Looking at the aerial view from the southeast on page 35 of the report, it doesn't really look too out of context to me. It's surrounded on all side by towers of equal or greater height: Ritz and RBC to the south, Shangri-La to the east, and Festival Tower to the west. If Festival Tower was approved at 156m, then it would be totally inconsistent with the city's own asinine tapering policy to disallow a tower that is only 8m taller, yet much closer to the core. Additionally, they set the tower back from the street to maintain the low-rise feel of the street.
 
Last edited:
Ramako:

Except that the building is pretty much the only 40+ building in a block of hertiage buildings. The report actually listed some very well articulated reasons for opposing the project. This project is probably as inappropriate as a proposal as the ROM Planetarium tower.

I really like this proposal - more than Casa and X even - but the setting is just not right.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I am not quite sure where to start: this is so wildly disrepectful and inappropriate, I am not sure what the architect was thinking (although I know what the developer was thinking).

And I cannot say I am a fan of the randemly placed metal banding on three sides of this tower. It appears to be an overly busy and failed attempt at decoration, for decoration sake.
 
I like the bondage look of the east and west sides. Perhaps The Great Man will redesign it as something shorter and squatter, as was the case with the improved and more neighbourly Market Wharf. But it's a real conundrum, given the report.
 
I am a fan too, and while I do understand the planning department's problems with it, I would not go sa far as to say that it ranks with the ROM's planetarium tower for inappropriateness. If the OMB does side with the City, I hope another version of this engaging design will not be around too many further corners: this would make an interesting design for the former Sapphire Tower site. Too bad it's not the same people behind the two.

42
 
Love love love it. This is the perfect building for this area. Seeing all the different types of massing along this area is great. It's only going to continue as our skyline fills up and out.
 
I have to say I couldn't disagree more with the report for about a million reasons. But here are some that immediately come to mind:
The report says its worried about the height of the proposal damaging the heritage/warehouse district in King-Spadina.. the same planning district where either City Council or the OMB approved Festival Tower, 56 Blue Jays, M5V, Charlie, 300 Front and others. The report may have more of a point for those four blocks but seriously I mean were talking about a site not only located in the downtown but immediately adjacent to the financial district. And even if we are talking about those four blocks, Festival Tower was approved for a site immediately adjacent to the area. This is not over-development.

I also fail to see why a 45 storey tower is so damaging to its surrounding context purely because of its height. If we're talking about impact at street level (which is what matters when we're talking about low rise heritage buildings), there is absolutely no difference between a 20-storey, 45 storey or 100 storey tower. There are plenty of examples of areas where height and low rise heritage buildings can co-exist.

I'm all for the preservation of heritage resources, but there is absolutely no reason why this means a parking lot adjacent to heritage buildings needs to remain frozen in time.
 
Totally agree. Censoring height is a decades old, politically correct planning department mantra.. often dismissed at the (despised) OMB... this tower massing reminds me a bit of the museum tower in NYC, and appears downright polite at its King Street elevation.
 
I don't know why they rendered it from that angle. It's just going to make people angry. They should have rendered it from Simcoe to show off how far it's set back from the street.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top