Hmmm... I like many of the elements of the earlier proposal better (setback, gate, porch) so I hope the final form will reincorporate some of that while maintaining the height/unit count of the later proposal.

While I agree w/the things you like, they are pretty tight on space to provide the setback and hold the unit count...........nah, let me take that back, it's not feasible unless they were to go higher. I would estimate 2 additional floors to allow a ~3M setback or +3 floors for a full 4.5M setback. (very quick math, might be off a bit)

****

I wouldn't be opposed to that trade per se, but it comes with its own issues. The separation distance at the sides remains a potential problem and if that has to be increased they could lose a lot of units.
 
I just hope we end up with some orange -clad monks populating the area. I loved seeing them out and about when I lived for a time in Cambodia.
If it's Tibetan, they tend to wear red. Well...least the ones did around my neighbourhood. And that was around long before their presumed temporary abode became apart of KESKUS today.
 
Some nice adaptable mansions being destroyed for one of the ugliest inspired knockoffs in a long time. Putting the monastery on the 10th floor does have advantages in isolating the cult members from the rest of Toronto. It's better than the current property set up or the previous proposed plan.
 
BlogTO - "A Buddhist temple could soon be perched atop a new apartment development, with the ten-storey building standing in as a modern analogue to a rugged Tibetan mountainside.

The proposed Kagyu Monastery at 1464 King Street West, just west of Jameson Avenue, would bring a distinct presence to the major thoroughfare, with a Tibetan-inspired design fitting for the area from local firm High Park Architects that fuses aesthetics from the East and West."


 
Front Page Story up on this one:

 
View attachment 628432
4M separation? from adjacent, with windows up/down those elevations? There is definitely a privacy/overlook issue based on existing use. But more curious to me is why with the precedent established here you wouldn't assume the adjacent block of properties wouldn't also be assembled for something similar in scale. Absent and LDA (Limiting Distance Agreement), this seems very problematic, and it would likely serve to make the adjacent properties undevelopable.
Assuming I am reading the midrise guidelines correctly, they would have only needed a 5.5m setback on the western lot line and 7.5 m setback from the northern lot line. Both seem very doable with the large property size, I'm curious why they would undershoot by so little and stir up a fight with staff?
 

Back
Top