Lenser
Senior Member
On the other hand, I find myself being thankful Trump wasn't taller than it already is.
Toronto Forma | 308m | 84s | Great Gulf | Gehry Partners
- Thread starter golodhendil
- Start date
johnwood
Active Member
your right, once its butchered it becomes irrelevant what height it is
ushahid
Senior Member
thats weird. when a tower is butchered the quality should be better because more money can be spend on each floor as compare to previous taller height.
e.g. one tower was 80 floors and if it was butchered to 60 floors. more money can be spend on the each floor. you know what I mean. but why towers in Toronto get cheap when they are butchered?
e.g. one tower was 80 floors and if it was butchered to 60 floors. more money can be spend on the each floor. you know what I mean. but why towers in Toronto get cheap when they are butchered?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Benito
Senior Member
But as they remove floors, they sell fewer units, with fewer units there is less money that they can spend on the project, so they aren't suddenly going to spend more per unit just because they have fewer floors to build.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
And city hall is in disarray - being led by a circus clown who thinks the world is laughing with him when in reality they are lauaghing at him - and by extension, at us.
cassius
Active Member
Right! The City tells them to cheapen out on materials. I completely forgot they do that sometimes/often/every time.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Huh, The Cheapening happens on the design, and not necessarily $$$$$$ on materials.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
greenleaf
Senior Member
Is this happening
Yes, there will be a report to council tomorrow.
I believe the working group is done. The planning office is still required to have a public consultation.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
I don't expect anything substantial to come out of tomorrow's Council Meeting. There may be some updates, like "we've had x number of meetings with various agreements and disagreements with the applicant", but for the most part I expect Council to adopt the Community Council recommendations (that adopted the February 20, 2014 staff report recommendations without amendments) and have Planning continue to prepare a report on the results of the working group for the May 6, 2014 City Council meeting. Basically, the public will find the results of the working group in a month or so, I suspect.
fedplanner
Active Member
Regardless of the outcome, I'm not liking the lack of public information. We were promised at least one public meeting before Match 20, the original date it was to be sent to City Council. I appreciate Adam Vaughan getting the stakeholders in the room to iron out their differences, but it's wrong for the entire process to be clouded in secrecy.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
At the December Council meeting where the working group was approved, one public meeting was included as part of the work plan for the group, but there wasn't any end date given when that meeting was to take place, so it could still happen, probably before the Staff Report for the May 6th Council meeting is complete.
In any case, a new March 14, 2014 Staff Report has just been posted. An Official Plan Amendment is required to permit the proposal, and as such there will be another statutory public meeting in relation to the OPA.
In any case, a new March 14, 2014 Staff Report has just been posted. An Official Plan Amendment is required to permit the proposal, and as such there will be another statutory public meeting in relation to the OPA.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
I was surprised Bousfields didn't submit this with an OPA
buildup
Senior Member
I'm having trouble understanding how much time is being wasted, so, basically by May 6th about six more months will have ben consumed by Vaughan's working group. Seriously, this could've been hammered out in one week.