interchange42 said:
Extra! Extra! READ ALL ABOUT IT!

View attachment 668089

...plus a good bunch of other new images in the DB file that didn't make it into the new front page story!

42
Click to expand...

I encourage everyone to read the new article and check out the additional renderings in the DB file, I will just add the development context model to the thread:
00.jpg

(blue is approved, purple is proposed)
 
Paclo said:
I encourage everyone to read the new article and check out the additional renderings in the DB file, I will just add the development context model to the thread:
View attachment 668096
(blue is approved, purple is proposed)
Click to expand...
And there's still a whole buncha wrong on there. I get we're a particularly nerdy bunch on here, but you'd think the big planning firms track this stuff at least as well as a bunch of dorks on a website...
 
...I take the approved as not something that will always be built. Some of those proposals could be zoning exercises. Others could be put on hold...maybe indefinitely as the economy "rights" itself. So the designation here is just a legal hurdle the developer has gotten over and not really much else, I gather. And assuming the model posted is accurate.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...I take the approved as not something that will always be built. Some of those proposals could be zoning exercises. Others could be put on hold...maybe indefinitely as the economy "rights" itself. So the designation here is just a legal hurdle the developer has gotten over and not really much else, I gather. And assuming the model posted is accurate.
Click to expand...
A good example is the monster 374-metre 191 Bay, which has been approved but will likely not be built.
 
I have faith that this will be built, but in typical Toronto fashion it's going to be very slow. Likely 15 years before it's done. I hope they stick with these renders and don't change it too much.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
...I take the approved as not something that will always be built. Some of those proposals could be zoning exercises. Others could be put on hold...maybe indefinitely as the economy "rights" itself. So the designation here is just a legal hurdle the developer has gotten over and not really much else, I gather. And assuming the model posted is accurate.
Click to expand...
That's not what I meant. There are many in that diagram which are simply mis-labeled, regardless of how viable they actually are.
 
travis3000 said:
I have faith that this will be built, but in typical Toronto fashion it's going to be very slow. Likely 15 years before it's done. I hope they stick with these renders and don't change it too much.
Click to expand...

I am not convinced the current configuration of the proposal does full justice to the heritage structure yet - and the towers aren't terribly well integrated to the design in a way that adds to and not take away from the original building. The park facing portion of the complex still looks insufficiently imaginative.

AoD
 
Amare said:
The TTC better start planning a capacity enhancement project (yes that goes beyond the second entrance/exit project), because there's no way College Station will be able to handle this density influx at all.

It's already rammed in the peak periods, and there's no way it's going to be able to handle all this at platform level.
Click to expand...
Walk-in traffic should not be too excessive. The TTC subway mode share of these buildings won't be as high compared to more shoulder areas of downtown. People in this location would walk, bike, or take the streetcar primarily.

Not to say there shouldn't be pedestrian improvements to the entrances/exits and pedestrian flow as part of this project.
 
ProjectEnd said:
That's not what I meant. There are many in that diagram which are simply mis-labeled, regardless of how viable they actually are.
Click to expand...
A quick sketch of the errors I can find. By my count there are at least 10 errors with either missing projects, projects listed as proposed which are approved, one which was refused and isn't an active proposal any longer, and one which is listed as approved but is under construction so should be "white" instead. By the looks of it the context model wasn't even reviewed for approval statuses given the litany of errors.

The rooftop addition to Atrium on Bay was approved in, what, 2017? Surely they would have checked the status of that one some time in the last 8 years..

00.jpg
 
ProjectEnd said:
That's not what I meant. There are many in that diagram which are simply mis-labeled, regardless of how viable they actually are.
Click to expand...
I get that. And without really knowing which proposal is what here, I added the disclaimer about the dodgy accuracy of said model in my post. Either way, I think my point still stands.
 
innsertnamehere said:
A quick sketch of the errors I can find. By my count there are at least 10 errors with either missing projects, projects listed as proposed which are approved, one which was refused and isn't an active proposal any longer, and one which is listed as approved but is under construction so should be "white" instead. By the looks of it the context model wasn't even reviewed for approval statuses given the litany of errors.

The rooftop addition to Atrium on Bay was approved in, what, 2017? Surely they would have checked the status of that one some time in the last 8 years..

View attachment 668257
Click to expand...
Yep, you got a lot of the ones that stood out to me too. You can add 396 Church as 'approved' as well...

Really embarrassing stuff, but truthfully, I'd never get Strategies to be doing development applications so it's not really a surprise, TBH.
 
They really need to play up the Art Deco with this one and give us something sculptural. This isn't Yonge and Sheppard.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top