Maybe I just know the area better than you do. IMO, this discussion should not be about what the building looks like (too highly subjective and rarely looked at after construction is complete) but the considerations given to street level space.
LMAO! Okay dude.
People don't evaluate a building's aesthetic after it's complete?
I'm confused, a conversation about a development that will stand on a prominent intersection for the rest of our lifetimes should not be about what it looks like?
It is the street levels of any building that impacts on peoples' everyday lives. The overall design is more of an academic discussion with little impact.
I don't see that. The architect has tried to arrange the setbacks so there is a lot of pedestrian space added to the street corner and along the frontage towards the TTC station. The addition of street furniture there will further augment the corner. For contrast, look at the other side of the street where there are wide sidewalks but awkward planters and a lack of street furniture.
Classic developer response to objectors: object to my plans at municipal level and I'll go even bigger at appeal.
Not entirely, no. But significantly, yes.
Love the passive aggressive "with respect" LOL
You're barking up the wrong tree here. All the NIMBYs left this thread a couple of pages ago. The members you're arguing against are all on the record as being supportive of density and development, but we have standards when it comes to design and architecture. I don't think anyone here objects to the size or massing of the latest revision, and I'm certainly happy to see the wide sidewalks at the corner, but those alone aren't enough to make this a successful development. Everyone wants something significant built here, just not this cheap dreck. Also, many of us are from the area, so no need for the holier-than-thou attitude.