Canadian City Proposals - Page 197

FrankieFlowerpot · #**3921** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 5:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Tact and Urbancorp I guess. Nothing special but infill where it's needed.

Lifetime and Core

Spring2008 · #**3922** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 6:24 PM**

Pessimistic considering there are 3 recently completed/u/c mid-rises (lido, pixel, kensington by Bucci) down the same street as St. John's that are as high or even higher quality than the Legion proposal. Same with the 2 mid-rise building Ezra on Riley Park project a few blocks west on 5th ave which is in sales stage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by O-tacular

So far everyone in the Calgary section loves the Legion proposal but we're all bracing for the inevitable community blow back and subsequent butchering of the proposal to appease the NIMBY's.
As an example this POS known as St. John's on 10th in the heart of Hillhurst / Sunnyside was the unfortunate result of community consultation.

LeftCoaster · #**3923** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 6:30 PM**

A very early look at Oxford's next office project in Vancouver.

Not officially proposed, but given that the cat's out of the bag it will likely be soon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think this is a model of Oxford's new office tower project on Melville Street - posted April 22, 2015 on the B+B Model website:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/BB-Scale-Models-Ltd/479688032047104?sk=photos_stream

SkahHigh · #**3924** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 6:33 PM**

^looks pretty awesome!

niwell · #**3925** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 7:36 PM**

That King and Dufferin proposal is pretty tactful infill. It avoids any of the historic buildings in the area and takes out some particularly grim stripmalls. That intersection can get surprisingly sketchy on top of being extremely ugly so it will be nice to see some change. As it happens I'm moving a couple blocks away in 2 weeks!

Hopefully Island Foods finds a new location though, because that is some of the best Caribbean food in central Toronto.

Innsertnamehere · #**3926** Posted **Jul 22, 2015, 8:25 PM**

We'll be (near) neighbours! Moving to Gladstone and queen area in September.

nephersir7 · #**3927** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 1:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

These two buildings will be demolished:

http://www.imtl.org/image/big/maison_alcan_mtl_2007.jpg

https://postmediamontrealgazette2.files....acona-armory-b1.jpg?quality=90&strip=all

Both are not big losses IMO.

WRONG. That first building (Davis building) will NOT be destroyed.

They're destroying its smaller neighbour (Salvation Army tower):

Here's the proposed tower's position on the lot:

From the east:

Rico Rommheim · #**3928** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 2:10 PM**

I visited the Alcan House today, and I re-read the articles and looked closer at the renders.

I therefore change my opinion. I'm no longer against this project. The 7 storey salvation army "tower" is not really not that integral to the concept. It can really go. The old heritage buildings are very nice but they're abandonned, so their integration in the complex is a breath of fresh air. And as for the argument that this tower is too tall for Sherbrooke, well its not on Sherbrooke, its actually closer to Maisonneuve and the impact will be felt mostly there. The tower is also nice.

TorontoDrew · #**3929** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 4:37 PM**

Yawn to that Oxford proposal, it looks like a mix between BA2 and and RBC Waterpark with a few random angles.

rbt · #**3930** Posted **Jul 23, 2015, 9:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It drives me crazy when there are unused or underutilized spaces waiting to be filled and I see building demand and development investment wasted by replacing existing buildings. ... The issue is that the unfettered free market doesn't have any goal other than profitability.

For-profit considerations normally take the path of least resistance per $ earned. A crappy building in the way is currently less of a problem than swapping properties for an empty parking lot. If property trading worked similarly to trading equities (negotiates and clears in 2 days or less, for a fee of 0.001% of the value) then that might change.

This is doubly true if one plot has zoning amendments or other non-visible preparation work in place and the other lot doesn't. All that said, a building of actual commercial value (rather than a teardown just in the way), like the Toronto Convention Center, will happily halt redevelopment in its tracks (see Oxford NOT currently demolishing it for a somewhat risky office redevelopment; they eventually will when it's a sure thing).

I don't think that's the direction we should be going in but it would allow developers to optimize better for costs.

WhipperSnapper · #**3931** Posted **Jul 24, 2015, 2:06 AM**

Huh? I just don't see a connection. Property is more than a financial arrangement .Parking lots are easy sells in the current climate. Certainly an owner unwilling to sell would not be interested in complicating their business holdings by swapping a lot for an improved site.

Nouvellecosse · #**3932** Posted **Jul 24, 2015, 4:35 AM**

Yes, I think if there was a way to rectify this it would more likely be in the form of dis-incentivizing the act of holding onto under-utilized land such as parking lots. Like I mentioned in one of my previous posts and like others have mulled in the City Discussions subforum, the most effective way would likely be to alter the property tax structure so that it's charged based more on the value of the land than the value of any structures on it. That way it wouldn't be as tempting to sit on land in prime areas and collect parking revenues since the owners would be bleeding money by not maximizing the land rather than saving money by having such low taxes resulting from not having any taxable structure on it.

Klazu · #**3933** Posted **Jul 27, 2015, 5:40 PM**

A new massive 160 meter office tower in Vancouver.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locked In

I guess this isn't a rumour anymore - the formal rezoning application is in for 1133 Melville: http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/1133melville/index.htm. Height is listed at 159.9 metres to the top, 139.4 to the top habitable floor. ~487,000 square feet of usable office space, and 9,800 square feet of retail.

More renders here (PDF): http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/plan...lville/documents/building-renderings.pdf

Here's a render posted on Vancouver Market: