[Northern Light]

This one is on the agenda for next week's Council meeting with a Settlement offer.

The details are up, but I haven't found any new renders yet.

Notable is the sorta retention of one building on the site; I say sorta, because 3 elevations will appear to have been kept, but only one is actually being left standing, the others are being panelized in one case, and de-constructed and reconstructed in the other.

The intent is to also preserve some heritage skylights which will be reinstalled on the new, old building.

First the item page:

Agenda Item History 2023.CC6.4

Agenda Item History 2023.CC6.4

secure.toronto.ca

Second, the Settlement Offer:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-236219.pdf

Third, the Arch. drawings:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-236220.pdf

Fourth, the Heritage bit:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2023/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-236223.pdf

From the Settlement Offer:

And more.....

 

[reteequa]

NIMBYS

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

 

[christiesplits]

Today.

 

[AlbertC]

Back from purgatory

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

 

[Paclo]

Back from purgatory

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

View attachment 614787View attachment 614788View attachment 614789View attachment 614790View attachment 614791

The database has been updated to reflect the SPA submission. Changes are as follows:

• Storeys changed from 29, 25 & 20 to 27, 24 & 21
• Heights changed from 95.5, 84 & 69.45 to 95.31, 88.75 & 79.4m
• Total residential units increased from 892 to 919 (861 condo + 58 rental)
• Total vehicular parking decreased from 417 to 157
• Total bicycle parking increased from 360 to 1022

 

[Paclo]

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

Resubmitted to fulfill OLT pre-conditions with some additional stat changes:

• Total proposed units decreased from 919 to 851, with a redistribution of unit mix and tenure mix
• Total vehicular parking increased from 157 to 159
• Total bicycle parking decreased from 1022 to 940

Updated renderings:

 

[Sqazi]

So ugly, this will look terrible in the area

 

[xy3]

Extreme value engineering. brutal.

 

[Koops65]

Too short...

 

[xy3]

The brick accents are too tepid. No dimension or detailing and too much window wall. It looks straight outta 2017.

The brick should be at least 10 floors high and windows should be prewar industrial scale. instead this looks more like an amazon warehouse.

 

[Sqazi]

NIMBYS

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Absolutely not NIMBYs to ask for more effort on the developers. I have seen police horses dump better looking towers.

First Cap should be ashamed having their name attached to this. For decent development, look at what Hines had done right next to this site or the House of Assembly also in the area.

 

[evanb]

Regardless of the bad design of these towers, South Junction Triangle Grows is absolutely a NIMBY group. They fight tooth and nail against every major project in the area. That assessment is independent of whether or not this project is good from an architecture or urban design perspective.

Here's the most egregious example from their IG I found: having thousands of new residents live next to a transit hub is somehow bad for climate change, because of "more humans", "paltry green space" and "tree removal".

 

[Lenser]

The massing is too similar in the three buildings. Would like to see more variation in height.... this is pretty blocky, stodgy stuff.

Back in the day I knew artists who lived/work in the existing building. The whole area around Sterling was like a well-kept secret for artists and bands. Under-serviced, kinda sketch at night, but cool all the same. Inevitably all these locations get swallowed up in the city's ongoing bid to renew itself and make way for the future. It has to happen but I'm still in favour of more imaginative designs here.