Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

Sime

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 13, 2021
Messages
1
Reaction score
8
Excuse my ignorance, but at the last DRP meeting was it not recommended for a redesign of the massing in relation to the CN Tower? I know the DRP can only give recommendations, so was it just ignored and the developer will go ahead with this design?
This rendering was always suppose to pay homage to the CN Tower with the flares pointing towards it. Also they've positioned tallest to smallest building to again pay tribute to the CN tower. I actually love this design a lot.
 

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,266
Reaction score
4,045
I'm a bit suprised that they are proposing both residential towers as rental (which is a good thing).

I'd forgotten that only new condos need to meet IZ rules and that purpose-built rentals have no requirement. I guess the 32 affordable units weren't required at all (and thus a bonus)... but less than 4% of the residential total still seems low (maybe the huge scale of the office/residential development makes that number seem artificially low).

"The application proposes 832 dwelling units all of which are currently proposed as rental units. The applicant has offered to provide 32 affordable rental dwelling units through a Section 37 contribution with the City as a community benefit."
 

TossYourJacket

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
1,004
Reaction score
2,456
I'm a bit suprised that they are proposing both residential towers as rental (which is a good thing).

I'd forgotten that only new condos need to meet IZ rules and that purpose-built rentals have no requirement. I guess the 32 affordable units weren't required at all (and thus a bonus)... but less than 4% of the residential total still seems low (maybe the huge scale of the office/residential development makes that number seem artificially low).

"The application proposes 832 dwelling units all of which are currently proposed as rental units. The applicant has offered to provide 32 affordable rental dwelling units through a Section 37 contribution with the City as a community benefit."
IMO, it makes sense given Oxford is a subsidiary of OMERS. Having steady rental income is probably far more useful in the long term to a pension fund than selling some condos right now. Similar to how QuadReal (which is owned by a BC public sector pension fund) changed the project at Yonge and Grosvenor from Halo Condos to IMMIX rentals when they took over from Cresford.
 

toronto647

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2020
Messages
527
Reaction score
1,005
Can someone provide an educated guess on when the 2 residential towers will go up? i.e. construction will start this 2023 or 24 or 25 and finish roughly when. Even ballparks are fine.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,019
Reaction score
5,523
This rendering was always suppose to pay homage to the CN Tower with the flares pointing towards it. Also they've positioned tallest to smallest building to again pay tribute to the CN tower. I actually love this design a lot.
...putting it that way, you can almost see them saying, "Ta-dah! And there is it is!" <3
 

limer

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 9, 2021
Messages
44
Reaction score
496
This rendering was always suppose to pay homage to the CN Tower with the flares pointing towards it. Also they've positioned tallest to smallest building to again pay tribute to the CN tower. I actually love this design a lot.
Understood. I was just referencing what one DRP panelist commented on regarding the CN Tower. This is from the UT article:

"Another Panelist offered an alternative massing, arguing that the step up in the height of the towers "conflicts with the importance of the CN Tower". They elaborated that, "there is a lot of void around the CN Tower and it is always viewed with the context of blue sky. These towers now provide a backdrop to it as there are no other towers within proximity". They suggested perhaps the middle tower should be the tallest, with the easternmost stepping down as a gesture of subordination to the CN Tower, and that they might consider "re-examining the tops of the buildings and the skyline articulation".


Source: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/09/union-park-underwhelms-first-appearance-design-review-panel
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,019
Reaction score
5,523
Understood. I was just referencing what one DRP panelist commented on regarding the CN Tower. This is from the UT article:

"Another Panelist offered an alternative massing, arguing that the step up in the height of the towers "conflicts with the importance of the CN Tower". They elaborated that, "there is a lot of void around the CN Tower and it is always viewed with the context of blue sky. These towers now provide a backdrop to it as there are no other towers within proximity". They suggested perhaps the middle tower should be the tallest, with the easternmost stepping down as a gesture of subordination to the CN Tower, and that they might consider "re-examining the tops of the buildings and the skyline articulation".

Source: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/09/union-park-underwhelms-first-appearance-design-review-panel
They keep referring to that as a bad thing without really demonstrating why it's a bad thing...
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,019
Reaction score
5,523
...like lining up a chicken, pig and a cattle next to a giraffe from left to right, I think the public easily will discern who are the subordinate ones correctly, lol.
 

mburrrrr

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
997
Reaction score
13,314
They keep referring to that as a bad thing without really demonstrating why it's a bad thing...
Isn’t this so communication signals are not blocked, as much? I can pick up all the Buffalo TV stations from my condo digital tv antenna at ~100m but have problems with CTV bouncing off the CN tower to the east at times.
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
3,601
Location
Leslieville
I personally think Toronto needs to move on from the CN tower. It's a relic of the 1970s. The height of the CN tower observation deck has acted like an artificial buffer preventing taller buildings from being constructed. It's been 50 years.

Time to move and for Toronto to build higher.
Agreed. The thing will always have a place in Toronto's history and tourists will continue to flock to it.

On the other hand, I would suggest that there's a fairly lean market in this town for supertalls, much less megatalls. The CN tower isn't exactly holding back development in that regard; it's essentially economic forces that are at work.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
12,459
Reaction score
26,766
I personally think Toronto needs to move on from the CN tower. It's a relic of the 1970s. The height of the CN tower observation deck has acted like an artificial buffer preventing taller buildings from being constructed. It's been 50 years.

Time to move and for Toronto to build higher.
softball-baseball.gif
 

Top