DarwinP
Active Member
For once I really hope we can get this built. We need bold and daring architecture in this city. Please get this approved as built as shown 
Toronto 15-17 Elm | 99m | 30s | Fora | PARTISANS
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
From the Cover Letter:
Site Plan:
I don't believe, even after revisions, we're getting a mail room with Elm Street frontage.........give me a break. Partisans should know better.
Nix the parking here, bump the loading to the rear of the site. Use that to push garbage back, then shift the mail room back. Nice overall expression, but dumb layout at-grade on Elm.
Site Plan:
I don't believe, even after revisions, we're getting a mail room with Elm Street frontage.........give me a break. Partisans should know better.
Nix the parking here, bump the loading to the rear of the site. Use that to push garbage back, then shift the mail room back. Nice overall expression, but dumb layout at-grade on Elm.
Northern Light
Superstar
artyboy123
Senior Member
The new rendering is updated in the database. The total unit count changed from 174 units to 216 units. Total car parking changed from 22 parking to 23 parking. Total bike parking changed from 198 bike parking to 203 bike parking.
Rendering taken from the architectural plan via rezoning.
Rendering taken from the architectural plan via rezoning.
Last edited by a moderator:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
This looks great as long as we collectively decide to ignore the east west elevation, conveniently left out of the renderings.. (yes, that is a 100 metre tall blank wall)
Last edited:
Bayer
Senior Member
It will be facing the blank wall of the TCH building next door but it is much taller...
ProjectEnd
Superstar
*West* elevation
SonyPayStation
Active Member
I like this building, but the block plan is fishy. They are basically saying the east assembly along Yonge should be A-OK with a 500 SM plate and provide the required 25M setback so that they can provide 0M.
Northern Light
Superstar
The City is moving to designate 15 Elm; over the objection of the developer here.
It's on the agenda for tomorrow's Council meeting:
From the above:
***
***
It's on the agenda for tomorrow's Council meeting:
From the above:
***
***
All I see in the City Council record is that this motion was passed with amendments at their May 10, 2023 meeting.
42
Northern Light
Superstar
So, curiously, in May 2023, Council stated its intention to designate, and then in July, affirmed that intention. Maybe in September they'll confirm that they affirmed their intention, in November reiterate it, in January revoke it, in March reinstate it, and finally in May 2024 redact everything, but we won't know, because it'll all be redacted? Seems like the best course of action. Meanwhile, they've saved this…
…(it certainly is cute) and stopped this from having a cohesive frontage:
42
…(it certainly is cute) and stopped this from having a cohesive frontage:
42
Northern Light
Superstar
So, curiously, in May 2023, Council stated its intention to designate, and then in July, affirmed that intention. Maybe in September they'll confirm that they affirmed their intention, in November reiterate it, in January revoke it, in March reinstate it, and finally in May 2024 redact everything, but we won't know, because it'll all be redacted? Seems like the best course of action. Meanwhile, they've saved this…
View attachment 495674
…(it certainly is cute) and stopped this from having a cohesive frontage:
42
The May meeting is the intention to designate; the clock starts on the process, which creates a window for an objection letter.
If no objection is received, designation goes ahead.
But a letter of objection was received, from the proponent.
That creates a requirement for it to go back to Council to re-affirm notwithstanding the objection.
The report to the July meeting addresses this rather succinctly:
The actual letter of objection is here:
The letter from Goodman's on behalf of client is actually rather indignant.
From same:
****
Given the tone, and that the designation will nix the as-proposed Partisans design, I expect this Council decision may be subject to an appeal.
70Challenger
Active Member
I think they can still have a cohesive design while integrating the older house, they just need to make sure the threshold between old and new is deliberate enough.
Northern Light
Superstar
It's certainly possible to build here, while preserving a facade/some portion of the heritage building.
But I don't see heritage going for the idea of the new overhanging the old here. You can see the way the Partisans design bulges out a bit above-grade.
We're talking a pretty material re-think here. I would imagine set-backs from the north elevation further cutting into buildable area.
We'll see what they come up with; FORA doesn't yet have a material track record for executing its proposals; are they/were they ever real? Or are they Kingsett Part Deux?
TBD.
The economics, on a relatively small build, just got a bit tougher though.
Last edited: