emphurent
Active Member
The building will end up being 10% wider, which can be seen in the latest set of AIC docs. Who knew the act of cutting 10 stories off the original may have lead to this building being so chonk.
Last edited:
Toronto Concord Sky | 299m | 85s | Concord Adex | Kohn Pedersen Fox
- Thread starter greenleaf
- Start date
The building will end up being 10% wider, which can be seen in the latest set of AIC docs. Who knew the act of cutting 10 stories off the original may have lead to this building being so chonk.
HometownPride
New Member
It'll look like a squared-off version of TD Terrace.
steveve
Senior Member
Attaching a screenshot of the updated elevations and massing (beefier profile). Height remains unchanged from what I can tell.
Source: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...nt/application-details/?id=4521502&pid=220331
Source: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...nt/application-details/?id=4521502&pid=220331
Northern Light
Superstar
Here is a link to C of A files from which the current notice originates:
www.toronto.ca
If you follow the link, carefully note the dates as there are multiple versions of the assorted files across different dates.
Currently, the variation in the latest notices is set to go before C of A on Nov 8th, 2023.
****
Of note are the Letters of Objection filed in September to current proposal.
TMU up first:
They go into a great deal more detail thereafter.
TMU then proposes 'solutions' which would allow it withdraw its objection:
The BIA also filed a letter; but it wasn't a clear objection or support, but rather a request that they get to meet w/the developer to review the proposal.
The Councillor also chimed in, in Sept:
****
The Amended Planning Rationale summarizes the proposed changes:
****
So the driver here is that TMU is not exercising their option for the podium space.
As institutional space there was greater floor height than for a residential floor.
The proposal converts 4 institutional floors to 6 residential floors within the podium.
This means increasing the podium height, which is offset by dropping a 'penthouse' (tower) floor.
****
On review, I would deny the application.
First and foremost the C of A application is wrongly before the C of A, the nature of the change is not 'minor' and represents a significant alteration to the proposal. A new Planning Application is required.
Second, the proposal would be better served by dropping 2 of the proposed residential floors from the podium and adding them to the tower instead, assuming the entirety of the space is converted to residential.
In the absence of TMU as a client in the podium, I don't see a good rationale for that space as office space in the current market, nor do I see 4 floors of retail moving in. The area is saturated for grocery and big box.
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
If you follow the link, carefully note the dates as there are multiple versions of the assorted files across different dates.
Currently, the variation in the latest notices is set to go before C of A on Nov 8th, 2023.
****
Of note are the Letters of Objection filed in September to current proposal.
TMU up first:
They go into a great deal more detail thereafter.
TMU then proposes 'solutions' which would allow it withdraw its objection:
The BIA also filed a letter; but it wasn't a clear objection or support, but rather a request that they get to meet w/the developer to review the proposal.
The Councillor also chimed in, in Sept:
****
The Amended Planning Rationale summarizes the proposed changes:
****
So the driver here is that TMU is not exercising their option for the podium space.
As institutional space there was greater floor height than for a residential floor.
The proposal converts 4 institutional floors to 6 residential floors within the podium.
This means increasing the podium height, which is offset by dropping a 'penthouse' (tower) floor.
****
On review, I would deny the application.
First and foremost the C of A application is wrongly before the C of A, the nature of the change is not 'minor' and represents a significant alteration to the proposal. A new Planning Application is required.
Second, the proposal would be better served by dropping 2 of the proposed residential floors from the podium and adding them to the tower instead, assuming the entirety of the space is converted to residential.
In the absence of TMU as a client in the podium, I don't see a good rationale for that space as office space in the current market, nor do I see 4 floors of retail moving in. The area is saturated for grocery and big box.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Looks like we're getting more topside slant for the buck instead of any real height increase here.
Collingwoodbuildinglover
Active Member
I actually think that that makes it look a little bit better. I still think this project is going to look terrible but it might be bearable
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Well I'm just glad they did the right thing and added the two to three new elevators to cover the additional units.
*Hold up, I'm getting something from control*: What's that? No new elevators? 317 new units and no new elevators? And they were deficient by 2 to start with?
If anyone buys in this indefensible future slum, that is entirely on your dumb ass.
*Hold up, I'm getting something from control*: What's that? No new elevators? 317 new units and no new elevators? And they were deficient by 2 to start with?
If anyone buys in this indefensible future slum, that is entirely on your dumb ass.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Problem is, most people looking wouldn't know to think about elevator ratios sadly. They need to be informed as consumers somehow.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Unless you yourself are in your 20s and in university and are looking to live with folks your age, doing things folks that age do, in a building with 1400 [shoddily built] units full of folks your age doing things folks your age do, I would not advise anyone attempt to live here...
Absolute. Nightmare.
Absolute. Nightmare.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Hope The City tells 'em where they can stuff their "minor" variance requests here...
Undead
Senior Member
It'll be like Aura with investor owned student rentals. Why are some still labouring under the misapprehension that investors give a shit?
stjames2queenwest
Senior Member
For sure a future student tower of chaos.
BUT from a never plan to set foot inside of it POV, I like how it looks like a blade. It will definitely add some contrast of form to the skyline.
BUT from a never plan to set foot inside of it POV, I like how it looks like a blade. It will definitely add some contrast of form to the skyline.
egotrippin
Senior Member
Problem is, investors will just buy these units and people desperate for somewhere to live will rent them anyway. Or they'll be turned into ghost hotels. There desperately needs to be some sort of code in place for elevator to unit ratio.
Amare
Senior Member
Generally speaking, friends shouldnt let friends buy or rent in any building built by Concord period. That's a good starting point for any consumer.
Then as another general rule of thumb; unless one is a student, dont rent or buy in any build after ~2014 that's located in the vicinity of TMU as those as all generally cheap investor box garbage builds.
As for this development, it's going to be certified gutter trash and there's no question about it.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
What gets me every time is the unfathomable quality difference between Concord Pacific and Concord Adex (at least that's how it used to be split, I'm not sure if that division applies anymore). In the Lower Mainland and Calgary, the former does excellent work. Here it's...well...we all know what it is...