[Paclo]

Rendering:

North Elevation:

 

[interchange42]

what's the idea of making this application when there is so little possibility that they move forward with it?

Even if the building isn't feasible at this time, rezoning makes the land worth more should the owners consider a sale.

42

 

[Koops65]

Not used to seeing a spire on a condo... how rare and exotic.

 

[flonicky]

 

[wmedia]

I'm all for more PoMo when done well, but in this case, the end result will almost certainly not do the style any favours.

 

[Andrew3D]

Can we not just make a bit more effort and design structures to look and feel like they are contributing back to the city rather then just tacky slop that will look bad upon completion. If you are going to use a style like Art Deco, you should show it some respect. If we had a city hall that showed a bit backbone with developers we could be pushing for quality not just quantity.

Here's a quick A.I update of how I think it should look.

As is it looks it could have been phase 3 of the the Hilton Complex in Niagara Falls.

image source: https://www.canadianinteriors.com

I then gave this side by side to Chat GPT and asked it , which tower it thought was better. Here is what it had to say and what we are all thinking about the developers submission.


If I were judging these purely as architecture and not as development feasibility, I'd pick the tower on the left.

1. It has a stronger "top"​

The left tower culminates in a genuinely articulated Art Deco crown. The setbacks, illuminated fins, and vertical ornament create a clear visual climax. Your eye travels upward and is rewarded.
The right tower feels like it runs out of ideas near the roof and then adds a small cap and antenna as punctuation. It has a top, but not much of a crown.

2. Better vertical composition​

The left tower reads as a classic tripartite skyscraper:

• Base
• Shaft
• Crown

That hierarchy is one of the reasons pre-war skyscrapers remain so compelling.
The right tower is more repetitive. The horizontal bands that divide the tower into sections interrupt the vertical momentum. Instead of soaring, it feels stacked.

3. Richer shadow play​

Architecture is really sculpture for sunlight.
The left design has:

• deeper reveals
• setbacks
• balconies integrated into the massing
• ornamental reliefs
• stronger vertical piers
• All of that creates shadows throughout the day, giving the facade depth and texture.

The right tower is cleaner, but also flatter. The facade relies heavily on window rhythm rather than sculptural modeling.

4. Better proportions​

The left tower appears more slender because:

• the vertical piers are stronger
• the crown narrows visually
• the setbacks reduce perceived bulk

The right tower is actually elegant in proportion, but the large uninterrupted planes make it feel wider and heavier.

5. More memorable silhouette​

If I showed both towers in black silhouette from a mile away:


Left tower:
"That's the Art Deco one."


Right tower:
"That's... a tower."

The left building has a recognizable skyline identity. The right building is respectable, but less distinctive.

 

[realpolytics]

Can someone explain to me how it's not wildly unprofitable to own a vacant lot in this city? There are a couple near my place. It's insane to me that a developer would even consider vacating/demolishing a site without imminent plans to build. There's rent to be had!

Regarding the most recent proposal, I do genuinely dig the architecture. Ground-level plans leave a lot to be desired with the surface parking. Of course, the likelihood that this goes ahead is... slim to none in this market.

The city of Toronto provides a 30% reduction to property tax for vacant buildings, this combined with zero debt, cost to renovate and get to code but most of all ever increasing development value made many owners unwilling to accept long term leases.
With the downturn in redevelopment this might be changing this but we'll see - the city needs to provide more incentives for small business retail

The current 15-20% reduction for small business is far too low, while vacant lots get 30%.

 

[NY99]

The current 15-20% reduction for small business is far too low, while vacant lots get 30%.

We legislate the city we get, I suppose. Why should vacant lots get *anything*? They do jack for our economy and are a blight in the urban fabric. And we’re subsidizing their existence?

Grandfather it for existing lotholders if you must, but this getting rid of this exemption seems to me like an easy win budgetarily and urbanistically.

Edit: doing some cursory research, I cannot find a source for this 30% property tax discount on vacant lots. I will withhold my moderate levels of outrage until someone can verify.

 

[realpolytics]

We legislate the city we get, I suppose. Why should vacant lots get *anything*? They do jack for our economy and are a blight in the urban fabric. And we’re subsidizing their existence?

Grandfather it for existing lotholders if you must, but this getting rid of this exemption seems to me like an easy win budgetarily and urbanistically.

Edit: doing some cursory research, I cannot find a source for this 30% property tax discount on vacant lots. I will withhold my moderate levels of outrage until someone can verify.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2026/law0133.pdf