I think some of these have been used at 100 Yorkville as well. (Hmm... not certain, anyway) They must be required in cases where there's some unstable substrate, or something like that...
42
Toronto Boutique Condos | 106.37m | 35s | Urban Capital | ZAS Architects
I think some of these have been used at 100 Yorkville as well. (Hmm... not certain, anyway) They must be required in cases where there's some unstable substrate, or something like that...
42
rdaner
Senior Member
jaborandi
Active Member
This process is often used on sites with issues. They employed it on the Templer Hotel which had a very tight lot and on the Nexus on Bay which is quite close to the subway. It must make work quite difficult.
cabeman
Active Member
Thanks for the comments everyone. I'm accustomed to seeing the large steel beam/anchors that mysteryman refers to, that's why this site struck me as unusual. It may very well be that the transformer station next door is the reason for this approach.
AlbertC
Superstar
Phase II has now added on a height addition and is now 35 storeys. Nothing special but nice density.
BobBob
Senior Member
I suppose that makes sense, being right next to the very tall Shangri-La. However, there's something a bit awkward about the look of the stretched tower.
alklay
Senior Member
I assuming that they won (or anticipate a win) at the OMB. The city rejected the height increase.
I agree, there is something a bit odd looking about it, but I thought that the previous version looked odder. To me, this is an improvement - the two buildings now visually balance each other better in my estimation.
Funny that it's got an half-hearted W1-ish protrusion half way up...
I believe the OMB gave them what they wanted - it's a done deal.
42
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Not the best looking tower, but the density is good and it will be hidden on back streets. Would likely be a decent investment with the Shangri La going across the street and with both the Ritz and Festival tower going up nearby - with all those high-end towers going up this will end up just being background filler. I believe that Aspen Ridge bought the empty lot across the road from this project.
BobBob
Senior Member
What was the city's reason for denying them the height increase? Was it the proximity to the subway? The adjacent existing and soon-to-be skyscrapers? The lack of existing established residential in the area?
Sometimes, I'm thankful we have the OMB.
Sometimes, I'm thankful we have the OMB.
urbandreamer
recession proof
I think the city was correct in this case: ie denying developer the right to put up another crappy dated (c1994 vancouver) tower. Apparently, OMB is in love with inferior product.
jaborandi
Active Member
It was a density issue, not an aesthetics issue. As we all know, the City takes a very cavalier attitude towards aesthetics. Hopefully that will change.
canarob
Senior Member
I've never understood why the city seems to insist on having shorter buildings just west of University -- at least north of King. This would seem to be a perfect area for high rises.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
The city has no rights under current legislation to deny a zoning by-law amendment on the aethetics of a project... nor does the OMB have any right to approve a project based on the exterior design. An OMB approval would have been based on planning rationale, not anything to do with what in your opinion is an inferior product.
The city's local area plan for the King/Spadina area calls for only mid-rise projects in this area to mesh with the existing buildings better. The height limits apply all the way over to Simcoe Street. Boutique was allowed to go to 20 floors, so as to step down into the area from University, but the OMB saw 35 floors as a more reasonable step-down seeing how high Shangri-La is just across the street.
42