Toronto U Condominiums | 183.79m | 56s | Pemberton | a—A

4 March 2014
WWZYDvE.jpg

aARopRa.jpg
 
greenleaf said:
From the Committee of Adjustment agenda for 50 St. Joseph St:

"To alter the redevelopment plan to construct two residential towers (45 storeys and 55 storeys), as approved under site specific By-law 1023-2008, by constructing a one-storey addition to the East Tower and a three-storey addition to the West Tower."

Found here: http://www1.toronto.ca/staticfiles/...iles/pdf/C/January 22, 2013 TEY Agenda PM.pdf
Click to expand...

What, if anything, happened to this application? My apologies if I missed the answer.
 
The Committee of Adjustment allowed the increase, but their decision has been appealed by the Solicitor for the City of Toronto to the OMB.

That's a learning item for me: I had no idea that the City (Council I presume) could appeal the decision of another of the City's bodies, and that it would have to go to the OMB the same way that external appeals do, but there you go.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The Committee of Adjustment allowed the increase, but their decision has been appealed by the Solicitor for the City of Toronto to the OMB.

That's a learning item for me: I had no idea that the City (Council I presume) could appeal the decision of another of the City's bodies, and that it would have to go to the OMB the same way that external appeals do, but there you go.

42
Click to expand...

Technically the CoA is a creature of the Planning Act, and since it's essentially a kind of panel/tribunal there's no reason the City should lack the standing to appeal its decision. It's true that the City appoints its members, but the CoA remains a creature of provincial statute, as opposed to one of the City's by-laws.
 
It's a bit difficult to see in the pictures below but they have started installing the balcony railings (sorry for the bad quality). Can't wait to see what the balcony glass will look like! :)
IMAG3084.jpg

IMAG3085.jpg

IMAG3086.jpg

IMAG3087.jpg
 
Northern Magus said:
Technically the CoA is a creature of the Planning Act, and since it's essentially a kind of panel/tribunal there's no reason the City should lack the standing to appeal its decision. It's true that the City appoints its members, but the CoA remains a creature of provincial statute, as opposed to one of the City's by-laws.
Click to expand...
Yes, the City quite often appeals C of A decisions - often on the grounds that they are NOT minor. (The C of A is only allowed to adjudicate "minor variances" and a few other things. )The City is in the process of looking into setting up its own appeal body for C of A. A final report is due to come to the Planning Committee on 29 May. See: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/c...410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD&vgnextfmt=default
 
great pics PatM.

I walk by this development on my way to work daily and find the U condos quite underwhelming. Anyone have the same thoughts? The staggered balconies seem great, but for more impact I would have liked to see the staggering more emphasized.
 
pmilo said:
great pics PatM.

I walk by this development on my way to work daily and find the U condos quite underwhelming. Anyone have the same thoughts? The staggered balconies seem great, but for more impact I would have liked to see the staggering more emphasized.
Click to expand...

It's a very boring project. Sometimes aA annoys me with some of their cookie cutter designs...because I know they're capable of oh so much better.

HP > aA
 
TheKingEast said:
It's a very boring project.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's a really sad project. By the time construction had started, the design was already dated, and the wait killed any form of anticipation. The cladding is a huge let down too (though it's hard to expect much from any new Toronto condo building), it looks like the cladding on Burano, and the shape of the tower can't justify it either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top