Search results

Then designate them if theyre deserving of it. The correct response is not to turn down all proposals in the area as an alternative. By the way, I second that the materials will need to be great to make it work.

I have to say I couldn't disagree more with the report for about a million reasons. But here are some that immediately come to mind: The report says its worried about the height of the proposal damaging the heritage/warehouse district in King-Spadina.. the same planning district where either...

Agreed. Unfortunately a high end building doesn't always equate to top notch architecture in this city. Nonetheless, I think it will be solid at street level, which in my opinion is what really matters for this location.

I agree that it doesn't fit the existing context, but this is probably the most rapidly changing area of the city. The existing context is relatively low rise, but within the next 5 years or so the neighbourhood should be unrecognizable in a way that would favour this sort of architectural...

Thanks for putting this together 3D, much appreciated. This really shows how much Aura will stick out from the rest of the midtown cluster. I haven't decided if this means it will look awkward with respect to the rest of the skyline or if it will help expand what's considered the financial...

^^^ You can build lot line to lot line for any portion of building that doesn't have windows. Otherwise the building setbacks would apply.

Despite what the article says its not a direct trade off. The inclusion of the affordable rental housing is this project's section 37 contribution, which technically is density in exchange for community contributions. However, the way a projects contribution is determined is done so as an...

In case anyones curious, its Core Architects on this one

I'm not sure if anyone else has made this observation already, but I'll go for it anyways. John street has the potential to become a really special street in the downtowns west end. When you add together, the Rogers Centre and the AGO at either end, the Festival Tower, the CBC Building, the...

I actually don't see what the big deal is. As it stands now, as you walk up University Ave. you can see the existing four seasons poking up behind Queens Park. If the towers get approved and built they'll be similarly visible. Granted they'll be taller and thus more visible from certain stand...

Firstly, maybe for like minded people on the skyscraper forums the cannon effect is an important feature to a street scape but in the general public, and as far as the City is concerned, in most circumstances this is something that is not seen as a positive. The effects of shadowing streets...

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...dfile-6110.pdf The public art plan I posted a few pages back indicates they'll be an LED strip at the corner but only for the first 5 floors. In my opinion, I actually think thats the better way to go rather than stretching it the height of the...

Not sure of how its split up but according to the site specific by-law there is ground floor retail: www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2008/law0317.pdf

Agreed for the most part. Even in addition to all the examples MatrixElement listed, I think most new condo proposals in the coming months will be in King-Spadina/ the entertainment district. Only thing is, as far as city planning staff is concerned, Festival Tower will be the tallest building...

I noticed that too. Although I've never heard any number higher than 195m wrt the height. I suppose since the original by-law placed controls on the building envelope rather than the actual number of stories, they could add the 5 stories while keeping the height the same and lower the floor to...

According to the report posted below $2,000,000 has been set aside for a public art contribution. At the time of the report, the art plan was still in the planning stages but it sounds like they'll be some sort of lighting component for the first five floors at the corner of bay and adelaide...

As I've said before in this thread, I think this is more of a case of the development falling within counselor Vaughn's ward, who has shown to be fairly pro-development over the years. Ultimately, it is counsel's decision to make and not planning staff's. If counsel has a good reason to approve...

This application hasn't been approved by the City yet. I'm not sure what the time line on the application is but I'd expect a planning report to be on one of the next couple community council meeting agendas.

Vaughn didn't do anything himself really. He supported the Gansevroot project and this one with planning staff recommended refusal and council approved both proposals presumably due to his support. It doesn't mean its going ahead. It just means its zoning is approved notwithstanding any OMB...

^^ when the local councilor wants it to pass regardless and has enough pull to get the rest of council on side. It happens from time to time, especially when Adam Vaughan is involved. The Gansevoort proposal on Richmond comes to mind as a similar example.