Toronto Montgomery Square | 84.12m | 27s | Rockport Group | RAW Design

taal said:
Curious did they give you a reason ?

Or the typical too many condos rubbish ... I'm a resident and for the most part that's the only reason I've been given. Nothing in particular about the design, heck many do not even state extra traffic as a concern.

Anyway, personally I think its great; First they're keeping the front in tact while the rest of the building wasn't anything special at all. I really hope they plan for retail at the base, the plaza in front is already nice but more seating would be nice.

Height wise I'm on the fence, I think something a little shorter may be better suited but I'll need more details.

Design wise its a little early to tell. Looks a little like building just south of Eglinton on Redpath (with the white panels that stick out) that actually turned out very well.
Click to expand...

They weren't thrilled at the idea of another condo going up in the area, but I believe what irked them most is the treatment of the heritage site and having it "swallowed" up by the development.

Anyways, I found another rendering here:

68523_292617490870514_1601125472_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
Nice. The rendering shows the tower (which design-wise can be described as "meh", especially as the rear looks awkward) being very respectful of the heritage facade and preserving the public plaza. Those are the two main issues I had.
 
taal said:
Curious did they give you a reason ?

Or the typical too many condos rubbish ... I'm a resident and for the most part that's the only reason I've been given. Nothing in particular about the design, heck many do not even state extra traffic as a concern.

Anyway, personally I think its great; First they're keeping the front in tact while the rest of the building wasn't anything special at all. I really hope they plan for retail at the base, the plaza in front is already nice but more seating would be nice.

Height wise I'm on the fence, I think something a little shorter may be better suited but I'll need more details.

Design wise its a little early to tell. Looks a little like building just south of Eglinton on Redpath (with the white panels that stick out) that actually turned out very well.
Click to expand...

How about the fact that this kind of height & density at this location is not in the OP? Is that reason enough for you?

If you permit 26 here what's to stop towers creeping all the way up Yonge to Sporting Life, shadowing all that single family to the west? This is clearly a mid rise location. 10 storeys max. Intensification should be concentrated in designated areas not haphazardly wherever developers need it to justify vastly overpaying for property.
 
What's the tower to the left of the Postal Station K with the brown podium? Is that a fantasy rendering or a planned project?
 
CN Tower said:
How about the fact that this kind of height & density at this location is not in the OP? Is that reason enough for you?

If you permit 26 here what's to stop towers creeping all the way up Yonge to Sporting Life, shadowing all that single family to the west? This is clearly a mid rise location. 10 storeys max. Intensification should be concentrated in designated areas not haphazardly wherever developers need it to justify vastly overpaying for property.
Click to expand...

You are correct in that the OP states that mid-rise development should occur on Yonge north of Roehampton (Sec. 2.2.2) but in the end I wouldn't get pedantic with the precise language of the growth boundary. In the end however, the Places to Grow Act has Yonge & Eglinton targeted as this as an 'urban growth centre' and if you've been playing this game long enough you know that because Canadian cities are 'creatures of the province' all of their functions (including building approvals) depend on provincial authorization. In other words, if this were a game of 'top trumps' my PTG >'s your OP every time.
 
CN Tower said:
How about the fact that this kind of height & density at this location is not in the OP? Is that reason enough for you?

If you permit 26 here what's to stop towers creeping all the way up Yonge to Sporting Life, shadowing all that single family to the west? This is clearly a mid rise location. 10 storeys max. Intensification should be concentrated in designated areas not haphazardly wherever developers need it to justify vastly overpaying for property.
Click to expand...


reor!!
 
The massing does overwhelm the post office, I think a setback to break up the mass is needed. I do like the panels (which appear to be limestone-esque) which connect the tower to the post office.
 
The OPA application is filed. That's 120 days the City has to respond. Should be interesting. The planners have been farting-around with this one for nearly a year now with nothing much to show for it. Obviously, they want this one to go to the OMB. Makes you wonder sometimes why we have a planning department at all!
 
ProjectEnd said:
In the end however, the Places to Grow Act has Yonge & Eglinton targeted as this as an 'urban growth centre'
Click to expand...

True. However this isn't Yonge & Eglinton; it's Yonge & Montgomery. Boundaries must be drawn somewhere otherwise we get zoning chaos.
 
Nimbies gotta realize something: Focus on the architectural quality not the height. This pair are the best D+S condo projects yet, perhaps better than the current aA proposals!

The integration between the old and new here is much better than the "clumsy" attempt at Five.

All these quality Y&E area projects--from E to Art Shoppe to here, makes me think moving to Y&E area would be a wise investment.

Oh, btw, I just came up with a marketing name for a future area condo: Y&E Condos!
 
Last edited:
ThomasJ said:
reor!!
Click to expand...

Huh?

How about raw-r!!

'Cause it's RAW, not DSAI.

No idea yet why the rendering is so detailed for the neighbouring DSAI building but virtually blanks the Pemberton RAW building. Maybe it's going through a redesign?

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top