You like it up close? We got it up close for ya!
Let's snuggle up a bit more!
42
Let's snuggle up a bit more!
42
- Thread starter PMT
- Start date
You'd like maybe it should be even closer? Hope you like scrolling!
42
42
daptive
Senior Member
I feel like in either case, those retail spaces will get combined either way. So while the original plan had oddly shaped retail units, reality is once they're combined it wouldn't have made much of a difference on the Yonge frontage.
daptive
Senior Member
Okay, I really like the brick work here.
Northern Light
Superstar
Hmmm, precast brick all the way up! Nice
Northern Light
Superstar
Posted at almost the exact same moment. Great minds and all that!
ushahid
Senior Member
Unison strong
cd concept
Senior Member
Beautiful rustic looking tower for this area! When are they to going start building it lol!
ProjectEnd
Superstar
I mean, it's for sale. There's nothing compelling the purchaser to pursue this admittedly-beautiful concept...
Northern Light
Superstar
Rental Housing Demolition Report for this one is headed to next week's TEYCC meeting:
Lenser
Senior Member
That slick warm brick shooting to the very top gives this proposal a sleek confidence.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Heritage Easement Agreement on this one heads to next week's Preservation Ctte:
Northern Light
Superstar
I've looked over everything.
My take here is 'No'.
Reasoning:
1) They want to exceed the floor plate guideline, and they proposed to do so while not clearly offering a public benefit in exchange.
2) By removing not one, but two setbacks they make the thing a giant, hulking box. I'm prepared to support simplification, and constructability, but that's more about removing needless setbacks before you get to a 750m2 floorplate, than allowing a floorplate in excess of 800m2 .
It's also about removing silly wedding cake nonsense or even worse the step ladder of dozen steps. But that's not what was approved here, and that's not what's being remedied. This reads more as greed from Kingsett than anything else.
3) I don't see an updated wind study. Removing all setbacks on the tower form almost certainly impacts wind, I want a study update.
4) A private student residence is ....... is unclear to me. Who exactly, and will the housing be affordable to students? This sounds to me like Campus One or some such provider, and I'm not keen on their work in the past, which ends up being relatively unaffordable and ....well.... bad. If TMU wants to pick this up as a residence, let them buy the site off Kingsett, commit to affordability, and we can talk.
****
This will probably go through, as I don't think I wish to waste my capital stopping it......
My take here is 'No'.
Reasoning:
1) They want to exceed the floor plate guideline, and they proposed to do so while not clearly offering a public benefit in exchange.
2) By removing not one, but two setbacks they make the thing a giant, hulking box. I'm prepared to support simplification, and constructability, but that's more about removing needless setbacks before you get to a 750m2 floorplate, than allowing a floorplate in excess of 800m2 .
It's also about removing silly wedding cake nonsense or even worse the step ladder of dozen steps. But that's not what was approved here, and that's not what's being remedied. This reads more as greed from Kingsett than anything else.
3) I don't see an updated wind study. Removing all setbacks on the tower form almost certainly impacts wind, I want a study update.
4) A private student residence is ....... is unclear to me. Who exactly, and will the housing be affordable to students? This sounds to me like Campus One or some such provider, and I'm not keen on their work in the past, which ends up being relatively unaffordable and ....well.... bad. If TMU wants to pick this up as a residence, let them buy the site off Kingsett, commit to affordability, and we can talk.
****
This will probably go through, as I don't think I wish to waste my capital stopping it......
Last edited: