Toronto Church and Wellesley | 101.78m | 31s | ONE Properties | S9

[Dr. Snoot]

The steps are facing the wrong way. They should be facing Church, not Wellesley. Otherwise this looks promising.

Even better, diagonally to the intersection.

 

[TheKingEast]

I like it.

 

[Momin]

Latest update:

ONE Properties first revealed plans for a new 43-storey 3XN-designed rental tower in Toronto's Church and Wellesley neighbourhood at the start of 2017. The company hosted a number of pre-application consultations, gradually winnowing down multiple concepts for the building's base by the Copenhagen-based 3XN, to find the optimal interaction of the building with the street: located at the main crossroads of the city's gay community, the Edmonton-based developer, pushing ahead with their first Toronto complex, has wanted to make sure that the community is on board.

 

[yyzer]

Don't know if we've seen this render before...

https://www.designboom.com/architecture/3xn-toronto-tower-church-wellesley-canada-10-16-2017/

 

[ushahid]

^looks taller than 161m.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

That may be the first render I've seen with a realistic depiction of Toronto winter

(or is it just rain? although those are pretty interchangeable)

 

[innsertnamehere]

there is a lady in a short sleeve shirt and skirt.. Think it's just rain. That or they decided to depict someone who would be very, very cold.

 

[maestro]

the trees and grass aren't interchangeable.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Fair enough. I thought the mist looked like a snowfall, but obviously need to pay a bit more attention.

Still think it looks a little slushy in the bottom left corner, though.

 

[ADRM]

Major effing ugh. Starting to passionately dislike Planning.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Wow, the developer put so much into this to please everyone, and now a refusal from city planning??

 

[TheKingEast]

Such bullshit.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Definitely does not give incentive to developers to try and work with the community.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Definitely does not give incentive to developers to try and work with the community.

I think the city does this and then settles to receive more Section37 funds

 

[interchange42]

No, Planning does this when the building simply contravenes the rules for any particular site. KWT's wording, however, lacking any condemnation, makes me wonder if she'll be pulling a rabbit out of the hat on this one the way she did for the Massey Tower (which Planning also recommended refusal of). Massey Tower came with major community benefits to be realized in a few years time at Massey Hall. Here, I imagine she wants the community space that's being offered at the corner… but I'd be willing to bet that they have to come down from 43 storeys to somewhere in the 30s to get her blessing.

42