Automation Gallery
Superstar
You kidding, 1-1/2 years later and yet another re-design??, what next 'a 196 meter glass box with black and white balconies
- Thread starter ProjectEnd
- Start date
maestro
Senior Member
The owners are pushing something here to spite new planning policy that reads their site is too small for a typical 700sqm tower. This is just the start.
cd concept
Senior Member
It's amazing how most of us talk negative about the same cut and paste glass boxes going up in the city. And there's nothing we can do about it but look at it when it's finished!
Koops65
Senior Member
The revised 2 Carlton:
The big picture:
The big picture:
67Cup
Active Member
Just to be clear, the “like” above is for Koops’ great work, not for the design of the building
maestro
Senior Member
It's misguided to think a mediocre combination of curves, undulations, crowns, stepbacks, etc. take longer to create a concept or, are any less cut and paste than those dreaded boxes. Quality in design should come first. It shouldn't be about the general massing. Not one of the designs for 2 Carlton has an original idea new to Toronto. Every one looks thrown together very quickly.
LMVDR
Active Member
Can someone please tell me the size of the site? Seems like a great spot for 73 storeys. Right at the corner of Yonge and Carlton. How is this any less appropriate for mega density than Aura?
cityspace
Active Member
The revision is ok i guess.. if they don't use cheap cladding, it will look OK. But the two original twin towers were more striking, more daring, more futuristic...This is just...classy?? Why was the original proposal changed, anybody know?
Benito
Senior Member
Whatever is built here, it should retain if not increase the commercial square footage and not greatly reduce it as it appears this most recent update does.
isaidso
Senior Member
If it is too big for this lot according to planning policy, then perhaps the planning policy is needs to change.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Haha why?
with the outdated planning policy they can always make a backroom deal and compromise
As the Panel pointed out, typically when a developer asks for more height or density, they must give more in return, usually in the form of public realm or streetscape improvements, or community facilities. In the case of 2 Carlton, with a proposed height 18 storeys above the suggested maximum, the Panel stressed that "when the ask is big, then the offer to the City must be equally as generous",
Mongo
Senior Member
I can understand why the City prefers keeping the outdated zoning policy, since it generally results in more easily gaining benefits to the public realm. But doing so is still ethically dubious in my opinion.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
the 18 storeys isn't above as of right zoning, which is considerably less. It's above the north yonge planning framework, which is an area specific policy under the official plan. So it needs an OPA, not a rezoning.
Reforming the zoning would also mean having to find a new way to fund neighbourhood improvements. If you're moving lots of new people into an area, there's no reason why infrastructure improvements should not be part of the approval in some way.
42
Mongo
Senior Member
One obvious way to retain the funding would be to institute a flat development tax per square meter of space (presumably with different rates for different uses and project locations), while instituting a much more generous zoning plan. This would eliminate a lot of the uncertainty we have now, on whether a given project will be approved or not.