This is a nice proposal and I think a classy alteration to the heritage structure, I do not agree with a reccomendation of refusal based on the limited knowledge I have of this project.
 
Last edited:
I read the link saying that they reccomend refusal. I am just basing my assumption on previous renders. Which I felt were tasteful. Perhaps things changed dramatically and I am unaware.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
I read the link saying that they reccomend refusal. I am just basing my assumption on previous renders. Which I felt were tasteful. Perhaps things changed dramatically and I am unaware.
Click to expand...

Refusing is just a another way to stall this development
I say it ends up @ the OMB as a chopped re-designed mediocre structure
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Refusal is an actual decision. How is that a stall tactic?

There is absolutely no correlation that allowing developers to build taller makes for better architecture. Just take a lot at all the mediocrity among the tallest residential towers in the 400 foot list. This tower is also pretty mediocre for Westbank. When will we see Westbank/Kengo Kuma in Toronto?
 
^^^We won't because we don't demand better in TO for some reason. Oh, and Aura is the worst tall tower in a generation which certainly backs up your argument that there's no correlation between height and good architecture, not that the height fanboys care.
 
Refusal is a stall because the city doesn't have enough resources to deal with it. The zoning doesn't have specific heights limitations - and there are plenty of tall buildings around or approved to justify the request. Sending it to the board may give the city more time to deal with the application and/or at least negotiate with the developer. It would be difficult to say this is too tall given what was approved for Mirvish/Gehry & others nearby. I think the planning department is simply overtaxed - we are dealing with a great deal of projects (more than almost any other city in North America) and our politicians have been cutting city budgets for years. I really don't know how they actually do deal wilt all the applications they do.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
Height does not equate good architecture. But I don't get why some of you think height is a dirty word.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone against height on UT. For some, it has greater meaning as it relates to its the urban context. For others, it's all about taller and taller. The latter are the ones to take advantage of every opportunity to make their point. The College Street Residence is the prime example. How many times has it been brought up that the cheap cladding and bulky massing would have been curtain wall in sculptural point tower massing if the city had allowed the original 40+ storey height. (as if the additional height would get the investors to spend much more per square foot on construction)
 
Big Daddy said:
Refusal is a stall because the city doesn't have enough resources to deal with it. The zoning doesn't have specific heights limitations - and there are plenty of tall buildings around or approved to justify the request. Sending it to the board may give the city more time to deal with the application and/or at least negotiate with the developer. It would be difficult to say this is too tall given what was approved for Mirvish/Gehry & others nearby. I think the planning department is simply overtaxed - we are dealing with a great deal of projects (more than almost any other city in North America) and our politicians have been cutting city budgets for years. I really don't know how they actually do deal wilt all the applications they do.
Click to expand...

Refusal means they have rejected the application and ... this will blow your mind ... it may not have been over height. No decision in 120 days is stalling.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top