Paclo said:
Appealed to the OLT
Click to expand...

First CMC took place December 13th, 2024.

The disposition was that the appellant, while open to mediation, could not agree at that time, as the City had not yet provided an 'issues list'.

The City lawyer noted that this case would not be before Council to provide formal direction until March 2025, so he requested the City be given til April 4th, 2025 to agree to any procedural order.

A Merit Hearing has been scheduled for September 15th, 2025. (not visible on the case status page, but its in the CMC Decision dated December 23rd, 2024.

Shell (Gas Station) has been accepted as a party to the case.

@Paclo
 
Looks like we have a Settlement here.

That conclusion, based on a favourable report to the next meeting of Heritage Preservation Board.


From the above:

1738767315836.png

1738767343061.png

Renders:

1738767394312.png


1738767421606.png


1738767475940.png


Comments:

Fine w/the heritage bit.........but the contemporary build in beige/tan ............still does not work for me.

***

Also this doesn't seem all that different from where we left off..........
 
This is so much better than the original design, just switching from rectangular to square repetition to match the heritage building is such an improvement, also a contrasting colour.
 
If, for the new build, you wanted something that felt compatible with a warehouse heritage district, but didn't look identical to the extant building..........I think lifting the design of the podium at 55 Mercer would be a nice play:

1738779765265.png

Credit: @AHK (edited for greater focus on the podium)

***

Alternatively, if you wanted to stand out with compatible, but modern I think something like Tableau could make sense:

1738780030387.png

Source: Streetview

***

One could differ............ on a preferred treatment, but what's proposed is just ........... I think 'meh' would be the polite company way of putting it.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
This is heinous. As per usual, infinite time and money spent on preserving the skin of a mediocre building
Click to expand...

While we agree the end result here is sub-par......

Its important to accurately describe the process here.

The heritage facade here was proposed to be retained from the very first iteration. So no substantial amount of time was wasted there.

Heritage Preservation was very much involved in the time wasting, but their focus here was on the 'new build' portion, which regrettably their efforts did nothing to improve and may indeed be said to have made matters worse.

As to the heritage facade itself, its nothing remarkable, I said as much previously. But I think it could still contribute as background noise here. This is an old warehouse/fashion district area in our City, a City which really hasn't preserved much of its history and/or neighbourhoods in context.

I don't mind retaining a background here as a result; though if a compelling modern vision had been put forward here, I wouldn't necessarily have objected to losing it either. But they hired Wallman.......so keep the facade.

AlexBozikovic said:
....while the new construction is terribly detailed nonsense.
Click to expand...

On this point we're in 100% agreement. Its visually unappealing, doesn't relate well to anything around it, either by blending or by contrasting.
 
I'm getting Graywood Peter & Adelaide vibes...🤢

The second I saw that black spandrel banding on cream precast....

Let hope that's not what happens here because that building screams atrocious cheap out.

The previous banding was beautiful and brought a quasi art moderne flair to the new construction.
 
mrxbombastic said:
I'm getting Graywood Peter & Adelaide vibes...🤢

The second I saw that black spandrel banding on cream precast....

Let hope that's not what happens here because that building screams atrocious cheap out.

The previous banding was beautiful and brought a quasi art moderne flair to the new construction.
Click to expand...
Also I find it hard to see what tangible benefit is gained by the height reduction here apart from perhaps marginally less shadow on Clarence Square Park?

Will wait on the settlement for full review but I'm struggling with this one
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top