Has a public hearing been scheduled for this? I'm curious to see how the COV considers this within the context of the Downtown Core Are Plan. This blows past the desired massing and maximum building heights. Not sure if it's a brazen attempt by the developer to test the City's limits or if they're operating under some sort of assurance that the plan will be drastically changed in the near future.

I'm all for building up; however, I've also spent quite a bit of time in Toronto and this reminds me of the worst of Toronto condo developments being parachuted here. The design of the towers is uninspiring and bland, and doesn't align with the context of the neighbourhood at all. I do like that they've spent a fair bit of effort on the public realm, the daycare facility, and a variety of residences. I'm not sure about the massing though....is the future of the city a series of bloated podiums with random towers? Or is the future of the city more in line with walkable and breathable spaces?

To use the Toronto context, I wish that this project and the neighbourhood develops more along the lines of Canary District (https://www.canarydistrict.com/community/), West Don lands (https://www.cobe.dk/idea/west-don-lands) or the River City complex (https://www.harris-square.com/).

That's just my two cents based on my experience living in both cities. I'm operating on a very basic understanding/knowledge of land-use planning and design, but I've experienced the podium/tower circus and the European-style plaza and open spaces approach, and much prefer the latter.

...is the future of the city a series of bloated podiums with random towers? Or is the future of the city more in line with walkable and breathable spaces...

I don't see how the 2 concepts are incompatible. How are tall towers with good public realm space at ground level not walkable and breathable?

I don't see how the 2 concepts are incompatible. How are tall towers with good public realm space at ground level not walkable and breathable?

They aren't incompatible, but in order for this to work, the design of the podiums and towers needs to shift. Not sure if you took a look at the links in my post - if you look at Canary District or the West Donlands, you'll see good density but a variability in the buildings (both in height and presence) that really adds to the overall feel of the neighbourhood. What Starlight's done here is dump a park between two hideous podiums with derivative towers and called it a day. Is that what we want to settle for?

I'm not saying that the proposal is without merit. It definitely could work and we're in the early days. Am really curious to see how the city reacts to this.

Methinks some of the vibe of that Government & Herald project could have been neat here. I'm sure not crazy about the prospect of seeing three tall towers of the exact same design family on the same block. Make one of them unique (or sort of unique) and it would be a big improvement.

Methinks some of the vibe of that Government & Herald project could have been neat here.

In terms of the rhythm and granularity, sure, that's a good model. But maybe not the old-town brick look. Harris Green is a new-ish district but while Olde-Towne retro is not ideal, neither is the generic tower-podiums going up around Cook/Vancouver/Johnson.

The goal is if someone's walking over here from a neighbouring district, they enter Harris Green and it has a different and distinctive architectural feel. It doesn't have to look like anything that's there already but it shouldn't be a copy of other new stuff already seen.