Sunnyside said:
What variances are they asking for? Parking?
Click to expand...
THese:

1. A minimum 0.0 metres stepback shall be permitted from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres along Jackson Street East instead of the minimum 3.0m stepback required from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres.

2. A minimum 0.0 metres stepback shall be permitted from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres along Ferguson Avenue South instead of the minimum 3.0m stepback required from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres.

3. A minimum 2.0 metre stepback shall be required for the portion of a building exceeding 22.0 metres in height from a side or rear lot line whereas the By-law requires a minimum stepback of 3.0 metres.

4. A minimum of 101 parking spaces shall be provided instead of the minimum required 210 parking spaces required.
 
KingJames said:
Hope they get cheeky and maybe add some floors. For sure a tamer design.
Click to expand...
They look like they are angling to go on it relatively soon - I doubt they want to dive into an OPA/ZBA application at this point with a lot of risk behind it, notwithstanding 117 Jackson's decision.
 
innsertnamehere said:
THese:

1. A minimum 0.0 metres stepback shall be permitted from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres along Jackson Street East instead of the minimum 3.0m stepback required from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres.

2. A minimum 0.0 metres stepback shall be permitted from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres along Ferguson Avenue South instead of the minimum 3.0m stepback required from the building base facade height above 11.0 metres.

3. A minimum 2.0 metre stepback shall be required for the portion of a building exceeding 22.0 metres in height from a side or rear lot line whereas the By-law requires a minimum stepback of 3.0 metres.

4. A minimum of 101 parking spaces shall be provided instead of the minimum required 210 parking spaces required.
Click to expand...
innsertnamehere said:
They look like they are angling to go on it relatively soon - I doubt they want to dive into an OPA/ZBA application at this point with a lot of risk behind it, notwithstanding 117 Jackson's decision.
Click to expand...

These are pretty ‘minor’ minor variances. Not sure how city feels about their setbacks, I could see some of them staying or going depending on sentiment. Parking is great to see. It does look like this is moving forward though- nothing dramatic here. I also find the redesign an improvement, if only for show at this point.
 
I'm so tired of the zig zag design I see it on these towers all over the GTAH so I'm actually happy they dropped that look. Is this a more boring design? Yes. Will it age better than the zig zags? Definitely!
 
Stec said:
I'm so tired of the zig zag design I see it on these towers all over the GTAH so I'm actually happy they dropped that look. Is this a more boring design? Yes. Will it age better than the zig zags? Definitely!
Click to expand...
But we don't have ANY zig zags here lol.. we need at least ONE - all we have here are boring modular rectangles and picture frame jutouts as far as the eye can see - I am SOOOOO sick of it.. so sick of bland unoriginal designs..
 
This says Hi-Rise Group, which is the group LIUNA has been partnering with on managing the many projects on sites they own lately, right? Is this Hi-Rise making a go independent of LIUNA, or is LIUNA involved with this one too?
 
IMG_8146.jpeg
 
Hopefully this is just not demolition, will be impressed to see this area of downtown get some love (beyond the Vrancor hotel/apartment/hotel/apartment slab-o-concrete) adjacent to this site.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top