[AlvinofDiaspar]

maestro:

No doubt, though I am sure they will meet halfway in between with some added sweeteners (like the proposed park on the LCBO site, social housing and other s37 benefits).

AoD

 

[fedplanner]

There is a similar image showing the developers' vision of the land. I wasn't able to find it. If someone has it, please share.

What will probably happen is a compromise between the two visions. Rumor (on these forums) is that one of the One Yonge towers are being cut in exchange for taller tower...

 

[maestro]

No doubt there will be a compromise. However, it's a massive gap between the developers vision and this one posted. One Yonge is the orginal tower, a lower office block to the east and, three 35 to 45 storey towers on the north block.

Personally, I think it is closer to an appropriate scale for the site than the 7 tower submission but, most seem obsessed by height and more height. No matter how tall a proposal, " I wish it was taller" resonates in the background.

 

[whatever]

The heights are less important than the eventual street grid and scale of the pedestrian realm. That's what will determine whether or not the area succeeds as an extension of the downtown and a bridge to the waterfront.

And on that note, is there any possibility of Church being extended south under the railway tracks? That's a really long stretch between Jarvis and Yonge with no access to points south. The Simcoe underpass has made a tremendous difference in the area to the west, perhaps a Church extension to connect up with Cooper could do the same thing in the east. I would love to see any s37 benefits from the LCBO/Loblaws developments being put toward a project like that.

 

[Automation Gallery]

1 Yonge is the orginal tower, a lower office block to the east and, three 35 to 45 storey towers on the north block
Personally, I think it is closer to an appropriate scale for the site than the 7 tower submission

Wait a minute, Monde Condo which is much east of this is approved at 40 storeys ..and you think 35-45s is closer to an appropriate scale for the site on Yonge

 

[Automation Gallery]

There are going to be a lot of heads exploding on these sites over that vision.

Haha, of course.... it looks too much like CityPlace, i doubt any of that will be the final product
I believe the City will have to compromise on heights, in order to aquire lands to build the Harbour street extension.
Anyways, i smell a supertall coming

 

[maestro]

Wait a minute, Monde Condo which is much east of this is approved at 40 storeys ..and you think 35-45s is closer to an appropriate scale for the site on Yonge

Yes, I think it is closer to an appropriate density and height than multiple 75 plus storey towers. The site of the 88 propsed storey tower is perfect for a really tall 200 metre tower. The rest should reflect the heights of Pinnacle Centre across the street. The Island's view should showcase layers with peaks here and there. A wall of glass, concrete and aluminum no matter how tall is boring.

Monde is one of those peaks. It's height is far greater than the typical East Bayfront building. A really poor example to use.

 

[marcus_a_j]

And on that note, is there any possibility of Church being extended south under the railway tracks? That's a really long stretch between Jarvis and Yonge with no access to points south. The Simcoe underpass has made a tremendous difference in the area to the west, perhaps a Church extension to connect up with Cooper could do the same thing in the east. I would love to see any s37 benefits from the LCBO/Loblaws developments being put toward a project like that.

The Transportation Master Plan* proposes a connection under the rail corridor between Church and Cooper Streets. The Preliminary Preferred Alternative is on pg 7.

* Seriously, 602 pages? As soon as I open the file and see the number of pages I just want to close it. I'm very appreciative of it, and will probably go through most of it, but couldn't the report and appendices be broken up into different files? The Urban Design Report document is only 84 pages!

 

[whatever]

Thanks for posting that! So there's hope, at least.

 

[fedplanner]

My best guess on the Choice Prop REIT parcel.

 

[Jowblow333333]

Now that the area is starting to get into shape, Loblaws' land is becoming more valuable. It is pretty much the last parcel of land available for redevelopment in this strip beside the small one where Daniels sales office is

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-92511.pdf

"iii. 10 Lower Jarvis Street and 125 Lake Shore Boulevard -This property contains a two-storey supermarket (and ancillary retail) store on the southern two-thirds of the block and a two-level parking structure on the northern third. It is owned by Choice Properties REIT, the real estate division of Loblaws. They have previously signified an intention to redevelop the property, including holding pre-application discussions with City staff. At present, the timing of redevelopment plans for this site is unknown. The property is approximately 2.7 hectares (6.7 acres) in size."

 

[DSC]

Well, yes. There is no doubt the Loblaws site WILL be redeveloped (and the new east-west street will bisect it). Lots of discussion of this in this and other associated threads

 

[Automation Gallery]

Yup, it will be sandwiched between Menkes Sugar Warf condos, 70s, 64s + 20s office bldg. on the LCBO lands to the west
and Daniels-City of Arts condos 45s, 35s, + 14s, 11s office bldgs. to the east.

So im going to predict here a couple of twin towers haha, 55s, 50s, on the north side
and a 16s structure with a parkeet on the south facing Queens Quay

 

[Northern Light]

Yup, it will be sandwiched between Menkes Sugar Warf condos, 70s, 64s + 20s office bldg. on the LCBO lands to the west
and Daniels-City of Arts condos 45s, 35s, + 14s, 11s office bldgs. to the east.

So im going to predict here a couple of twin towers haha, 55s, 50s, on the north side
and a 16s structure with a parkeet on the south facing Queens Quay

There's no need for parks on this site, the tiny sliver that would be granted wouldn't be usable for much. I'd rather see cash-in-lieu to add critical mass to existing or contemplated downtown parks, such as Spadina/Adelaide or for something closer using the extra $ towards relocating the moss park amoury so that can be added to the park.

If we need to keep the extra cash close to the waterfront I'd like to see it contribute to enlarging Harbour Square park first by capturing the surface parking area, then by acquiring new land as part of any redevelopment there, beyond what planning would otherwise require.

Lets aim for meaningful gestures.

 

[condovo]

Loblaws protects the last sliver of lake view I have from my place up at King and Church. I don't approve of its redevelopment.