innsertnamehere
Superstar
A limiting distance agreement usually must be signed by affected landowners no? State Building Group probably managed to get the neighbouring landowners to sign away their tower rights somehow..
Toronto 316 Bloor West | 121.14m | 37s | State Building Group | Kirkor
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
I imagine that the limiting distance agreement pertains to the west along Bloor only, and probably stops the owners of the three-storey building from replacing it with a tower. The Pizza Pizza location and the Scotiabank at the end of the block, however, are begging for redevelopment. I imagine the owners of the three-storey building negotiated a fee to sign away their redevelopment rights.
Google Street View
42
Google Street View
42
Attachments
torontologist
Active Member
Looks like the decorative window treatments are gone, according to the new renders. 
Disappointing.
Disappointing.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
This is listed as "coming soon" on State Building Group's website. The site has a render I don't believe we have seen:
AlbertC
Superstar
Yikes, incoming eyesore.
That image is old, reflecting the 42-storey version, as opposed to the 29-storey one which was approved. There's still no rendering for it, but I have updated to database file otherwise with the new numbers. The building is down to 341 suites from 535.
42
42
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
greenleaf
Senior Member
Among many being asked, some really good and interesting questions at the OMB (hearing scheduled March 25, 2019):
"11. Do the height and density restrictions of OPA 365 inappropriately limit height and density on lands located on, or adjacent to, a transit station servicing 3 rapid transit lines?
12. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies and/or a tower site on Map 3 where such development site requires a land assembly and for which no application has been filed?
13. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies or a tower site on Map 3:
(a) in the absence of complete planning, transportation and servicing analysis that justifies those development sites for such high-density development?
(b) where policies in OPA 365 assume such combined sites will have access to, and use of, other neighbouring private lands, including private driveways and laneways?
(c) where one development site is favoured to the detriment of another without the justification provided by fulsome planning, transportation and servicing analysis and, in particular, addresses conformity with other policies of OPA 365? "
from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2018/2018canlii5642/2018canlii5642.html#TOpoli
Cross-posted: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-300-bloor-west-142m-38s-collecdev-kpmb.9902/page-9
"11. Do the height and density restrictions of OPA 365 inappropriately limit height and density on lands located on, or adjacent to, a transit station servicing 3 rapid transit lines?
12. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies and/or a tower site on Map 3 where such development site requires a land assembly and for which no application has been filed?
13. For the Spadina Node, is it appropriate and does it represent good planning to identify a potential height peak within OPA 365’s policies or a tower site on Map 3:
(a) in the absence of complete planning, transportation and servicing analysis that justifies those development sites for such high-density development?
(b) where policies in OPA 365 assume such combined sites will have access to, and use of, other neighbouring private lands, including private driveways and laneways?
(c) where one development site is favoured to the detriment of another without the justification provided by fulsome planning, transportation and servicing analysis and, in particular, addresses conformity with other policies of OPA 365? "
from https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onomb/doc/2018/2018canlii5642/2018canlii5642.html#TOpoli
Cross-posted: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-300-bloor-west-142m-38s-collecdev-kpmb.9902/page-9
PMT
Senior Member
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
This will be really grim in its spandrel-icious reality.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Saw some soil testing rigs here on tuesday when I drove by.
AlbertC
Superstar
This project had a recent resubmission from March 19, 2021. Renderings are the same as the previous set.
A couple close up drawings of the base:
Corner east elevation
South elevation
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
The saddest thing about this is that it seems like some of the people involved might actually be trying.
AlbertC
Superstar
To correspond with @UtakataNoAnnex 's post brought up here in the thread for the project next door(s).
There's been a recent resubmission of certain application documents on October 19, 2021. Seems like the Cover Letter/Detailed Revision List provides a summary of what's happening lately:
There's been a recent resubmission of certain application documents on October 19, 2021. Seems like the Cover Letter/Detailed Revision List provides a summary of what's happening lately:
artyboy123
Senior Member
No new detail changed in the database. New renderings are updated and taken from the architectural plan via site plan approval:
