interchange42 said:
Limiting Distance Agreement, not air rights.

42
Click to expand...
in this case the building would literally overhang the hotel, which would make it air rights.

Limiting Distance Agreements (as the name infers) involve landowners selling their ability to place a building close to their property line, enabling an adjacent landowner to build closer to the shared lot line than would have otherwise been possible. When a building literally overhangs another, that's not a "distance limiter", it's an actual encroachment into the property and thus gets a different name and contract type.
 
There's nothing reasonable about 35 times lot coverage for a residential tower. It's worst when it's 650 small units vs full or half floors that has the potential of many windows vs one. This is not an office or a hotel. The standards of a home aren't up to the challenge of attracting top talent to the city. The design is from an international powerhouse. There's hardly guarrantee when the market isn't in a place to build this tower. Even if it the design survives to construction, the developer and some local architect of record will choose the finishes
 
Looks real pretty for zoning exercise...

...and KingSett has likely more vapour towers in their portfolio then the entire region of Niagara Falls at this point. /sigh
 
Northern Light said:
I copied the words verbatim from the Planning Report.

View attachment 643972

The elaboration:

View attachment 643973
Click to expand...
Sorry, I was too hasty, yes, it's not an LDA.

Maybe it's just me splitting hairs, but I am uncomfortable with the wording in the Planning Rationale, as purchasing air rights is understood by most to mean moving them from one property to someplace else. This is a joint proposal with two separate ownerships but covering both properties. Even though it will result in only one new building, the developable space above the Hotel Victoria is staying just where it would be... other than for the fact that it's stacked more narrowly and higher than it would be, were it going straight up over the bulk of the Hotel Victoria site: the purchase of the developable space by the other owner doesn't transfer it somewhere else. It's better described in the Cover Letter as "a cantilevered element that would be located in part within the air space of the property at 56 Yonge Street". I simply don't like the implication that the developable space is being moved offsite that I believe is inherent in most people's understanding of the term 'air rights.'

42
 
This is my favorite angle.😊
IMG_9285.jpeg
 
Ok....not to pick on the awesome @1Ć0 but his isn't the first post in the last couple of days to use Spongecase/Studly Caps......

Can we please abandon this trend? It makes text difficult to read while adding no value back.

I get that its being used to mock its subject in some way......but one can do that with language instead of the artform of a poorly educated youth.

Just sayin.
 
Northern Light said:
Ok....not to pick on the awesome @1Ć0 but his isn't the first post in the last couple of days to use Spongecase/Studly Caps......

Can we please abandon this trend? It makes text difficult to read while adding no value back.

I get that its being used to mock its subject in some way......but one can do that with language instead of the artform of a poorly educated youth.

Just sayin.
Click to expand...
Lol i'm sorry, I've just become too jaded after seeing countless, fruitless Kingsett and H&R proposals along Yonge St... not as jaded as @ProjectEnd though... not yet! :)
 
travis3000 said:
Nice tower. I like it. It's a shame that 2/3 of the tower are studio apartments. Would be better to get some more 1, 2 bedroom units.
Click to expand...
Can't...who can afford $1100 a square foot? Architects are designing for those who can get financing unfortunately
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top