Toronto Residences at the RCMI Condos | 134.72m | 42s | Tribute | Zeidler

Automation Gallery said:
According to Adam Vaughan and the people at Tribute, there is not much in the original building that is worth saving, all those pillars will be aparently turning to dust when touched. Hey....this is as good as it gets, beats out junk.
Click to expand...

I think he was talking about the pillars inside the podium. They are new and not part of the old building.
 
urbandreamer said:
I'd wrap a glass box around the entire old building--like they did to the old Varsity house on St George or the Cambridge (Ontario) library--and give the developers another 15 floors for the effort. Oh, and fire Zeidler--they suck.
Click to expand...

Though I agree with the first half of that statement, the second is a bit maligned. Zeidler was good, he just devolved...
 
interchange42 said:
This ain't Zeidler's fault. Tribute is likely getting a density bonus by saving the RCMI's facade, so Zeidler is stuck having to leave it there. I think they've done a good job up above, and thankfully are not trying to clone that facade in a way that would look very goofy on a modernist structure.

42
Click to expand...

I believe Tribute tried to use 'saving' the building as a way to gain bonus density but it wasn't even considered. Section 37 contributions alone will be the trade off, and no, the section 37 contributions cannot be used toward the restoration of the facade.

The RCMI facade is still around in the design because of the RCMI. They want their building, and they want it in the same spot. They looked at many other options, and the idea of getting a developer to build above was the one they selected.
 
good spot for a building.

We could really add a ton of tall buildings on University...

Shangri-La and this will really add to the Street.

Plus that Zurich Tower is actually quite a nice building.
 
City Planning Final Report

Often I do not understand politians, approving an application when there are very clear reasons why their (very own) Planning Department staff recommends refusal :rolleyes: ... why do they bother referring items back to the Chief Planner for further comments when they have already made up their minds?
********

To be considered by Toronto & East York Community Council on October 13, 2009:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-23832.pdf

On September 15, 2009, the Toronto and East York Community Council considered a Refusal Report regarding a Zoning By-law amendment application to permit a 42-storey mixed use building to replace the existing Royal Canadian Military Institute (RCMI), which is a private members club, with a 6 and ½ -storey club and a 35 and ½ -storey condominium. Although no parking was initially proposed, a revised application includes the provision of 9 parking spaces, 8 of which were proposed to be in parking stackers. This report reviewed and recommended refusal of the application. The refusal recommendation was based on a number of factors: the omission of parking spaces (with the exception of nine spaces): the inadequate supply of indoor amenity space; the potential impacts on the adjacent areas; and the precedent for the City.

Toronto and East York Community Council has recommended that City Council approve the Zoning By-law Amendment application and directed that the Chief Planner, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report to Toronto and East York Community Council at its next meeting on October 13, 2009 on:

a) a Zoning By-law to permit the proposed development at 426 University Avenue, substantially as set out in the applicant’s drawings date stamped January 16, 2009, on file with the City Planning Division; and

b) the services, facilities and matters to be secured pursuant to Section 37 of the Planning Act as a condition of the additional height and density.
 
Solaris said:
Often I do not understand politians, approving an application when there are very clear reasons why their (very own) Planning Department staff recommends refusal
Click to expand...

Clearly, private interests of the few stakeholders involved have a larger influence on council than their own staff.
 
Hypnotoad said:
Clearly, private interests of the few stakeholders involved have a larger influence on council than their own staff.
Click to expand...

As I've said before in this thread, I think this is more of a case of the development falling within counselor Vaughn's ward, who has shown to be fairly pro-development over the years. Ultimately, it is counsel's decision to make and not planning staff's. If counsel has a good reason to approve a development then they should, instead of just blindly following the direction of planning staff.
 
Solaris said:
Often I do not understand politians, approving an application when there are very clear reasons why their (very own) Planning Department staff recommends refusal :rolleyes: ... why do they bother referring items back to the Chief Planner for further comments when they have already made up their minds?
********
Click to expand...

The previous staff report did not have a draft zoning by-law or Section 37 agreement, probably because it was recommended for refusal. Community Council directed the Chief Planner (i.e. Planning and Legal Staff) to prepare the site-specific By-law and Section 37 agreement and bring it back to them so they can send it to Council with those things attached.

The Section 37 agreement includes work on the heritage building (which isn't designated IIRC), and $1 million cash to go toward projects such as affordable housing projects in Ward 20, local park improvements, and streetscape improvements to Dundas Street West. There are also things like the requirement to go for LEED if viable and knockout panels for 3 bedroom units.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top