Search results

Only 12.5m separation between the towers as currently proposed.

This shows why they are not happy with the Timmy's redevelopment. They both can't co-exist while still having separation distances. Will be an interesting OMB fight. The Grand application feels a bit more defensive... pushed (rushed?) because of their neighbour's plans.

In case anyone is interested, the OMB case number for the file is PL141461. Hearing schedule for May 25.

I wonder where they will place the replacement cell tower that's currently on the roof of the northern warehouse.

Thanks for the report

I presume there was an OMB settlement on the East Bayfront precinct plan? Anyone have details?

Is it just 774 that is listed? or is there another property (I thought there were 2 for some reason)

Pre-emptively appealed to OMB because the owners of the Grand Hotel said they would appeal the tower if it was approved. Time saving measure, since it was going to the Board regardless (FYI).

It feels like a recycled LTD. red brick design. Uninspired.

Absolutely this. I couldn't agree more. One only needs to look at the much better podiums proposed at Dundas and Jarvis to see what is possible when the developer gives a crap.

I really hope so. They are a great feature for the neighbourhood.

I don't have any non-public knowledge about developments in the area (or any area, really). What I mean by that is that I hadn't been paying attention to this corner and so was surprised when I saw the sign posted. I would have guessed one of the other lots in the area (across the street, or...

Very welcome. I wasn't expecting this to be the next one to be proposed in this neighbourhood. Bit surprised.

I'm not sure how student oriented it is going to be, given that it is over 50% (if I remember correctly) 2 and 3 bedrooms. Certainly there are others in the area (including I presume the new one at Dundas and Church) that will be more student oriented.

The meeting was good last night. I would say there was an above average amount of support for the proposal. Primary concerns were around the allegedly shady dealings of the developer with the existing rental/rooming house tenants on the property.

I completely agree. I would presume they didn't want to do any retail at all if they could have.

Simply put, if this was a site that KWT and the city actually wanted to preserve, it had the tools available to do it. That it didn't speaks volumes.

Heritage preservation? Love it Adaptive reuse? Absolutely Stollery's? Demolish it.

Very well attended public open house last night. Primary concern is the boxing in of 192 Jarvis from sunlight by this project combined with the Ryerson residence. Other comments included the uselessness of the parkette proposed (in an area that doesn't really need more park space - a rarity...