I agree with you. Having a building 20 storeys in that location is really no threat at all to aircraft and airport operations. As far as noise levels go, let the consumers decide. We already build residential near the flight paths, so whey not allow it to intensified if consumers are willing to live there.
gsunnyg said:
If that is a restriction then thats pretty stupid IMO. That literally cuts out more then 50% of the NE from ever getting any real densification along the blue line. IMO, when I look at the AVPA map I think it is way too cautious. Other cities get pretty darn close to their airports in terms of highrises. I mean aren't there 10+ storey highrises in Richmond right on the footsteps of Vancouver airport? I like the way the FAA recommended it in the US. Building height is limited to 49m within 3km and once you get further away it increases even more. Id rather choose a model like that instead of preventing a highrise from being built thats over 6km from the nearest runway just based on noise levels.
Click to expand...
 
gsunnyg said:
If that is a restriction then thats pretty stupid IMO. That literally cuts out more then 50% of the NE from ever getting any real densification along the blue line. IMO, when I look at the AVPA map I think it is way too cautious. Other cities get pretty darn close to their airports in terms of highrises. I mean aren't there 10+ storey highrises in Richmond right on the footsteps of Vancouver airport? I like the way the FAA recommended it in the US. Building height is limited to 49m within 3km and once you get further away it increases even more. Id rather choose a model like that instead of preventing a highrise from being built thats over 6km from the nearest runway just based on noise levels.
Click to expand...

I agree the restriction is stupid but, you don't need high rises to achieve real densities or urban form. In my experience, the densities usually allowed are optimal for mid rise developments. To achieve high rise heights under these densities will require lower lot coverage and more pointless open spaces and/or lower base building heights. The Brentwood TOD makes good use of built densities but, there's also the wide driveways, one storey podiums, angled parking, etc.

This is pretty typical of mixed use tower development in suburban Toronto.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.897304,-79.2653492,3a,75y,95.36h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svYH-8ZRCdOLoV9QXf8pqgA!2e0!6s//geo2.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=vYH-8ZRCdOLoV9QXf8pqgA&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=69.13216&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

As much as I want to blame the commercial parking requirements on the built form, the simple fact is the developer didn't need to build on that empty space to make the project work. They would have if the height limit was 4 storeys.
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
This is pretty typical of mixed use tower development in suburban Toronto.
https://www.google.ca/maps/@43.897304,-79.2653492,3a,75y,95.36h,82.32t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1svYH-8ZRCdOLoV9QXf8pqgA!2e0!6s//geo2.ggpht.com/cbk?panoid=vYH-8ZRCdOLoV9QXf8pqgA&output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv.tactile.gps&thumb=2&w=203&h=100&yaw=69.13216&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i16384!8i8192

As much as I want to blame the commercial parking requirements on the built form, the simple fact is the developer didn't need to build on that empty space to make the project work. They would have if the height limit was 4 storeys.
Click to expand...

Those developments are brutal. They're literally high-rises built on top of strip malls. I've lost all hope for Toronto's suburbs. They just keep increasing density without doing anything to reduce car dependency, which dumps ever more cars onto the roads. And the worse traffic gets, the more resistant people are to reducing road capacity for projects like LRTs and BRTs. People in the Toronto suburbs are so angry about their long commutes, it's no wonder that they keep supporting the blustering populism of the Ford Bros.
 
I have grave concerns with development in all parts of Toronto. There's little interest or regard for good development. Everyone is only interested in cashing in on the boom.

Vancouver is slightly better with stronger planning control but, I can't say I'm all too impressed by the rapid growth around Skytrain stations. It's tall towers on top of open space shopping malls built to a density of finer grained, human scaled, 5 to 15 storey communities of the past. In my experience, living on the 50th floor of a mid range tower didn't at all live up to the expectations that the higher you are, the more luxurious it is. That only applies to high end buildings.
 
maestro said:
I have grave concerns with development in all parts of Toronto. There's little interest or regard for good development. Everyone is only interested in cashing in on the boom.

Vancouver is slightly better with stronger planning control but, I can't say I'm all too impressed by the rapid growth around Skytrain stations. It's tall towers on top of open space shopping malls built to a density of finer grained, human scaled, 5 to 15 storey communities of the past. In my experience, living on the 50th floor of a mid range tower didn't at all live up to the expectations that the higher you are, the more luxurious it is. That only applies to high end buildings.
Click to expand...

Ya it's weird. I went to Uni in Toronto 9 years ago, and went back recently. The new stuff often doesn't feel all that positive for the City. I thought it would be exciting seeing all this new development, but TBH i found the city feels bland and sterile where it didn't feel that way before. Even most of the mid-rise is large block (i understand the need for underground parking) and just don't feel or respect the scale or form of a Toronto street. ie this:
1544131000191.png


Just can't get excited about that. And the enormous condo towers everywhere in TO typically just feel cold and impersonal.

In terms of Vancouver, after living here and working in planning/development here, you start to look at the towers we typically see, especially around SkyTrain stations as high-rise Jayman shit. Think of them as impersonal vertical suburbs, at $1,100psf. It's all cookie cutter development, rarely is interesting, and are often just used as investment vehicles. Copy and paste a tower, slightly change the spandrel and mullion colour, and create marketing materials that pretend it has any sort of cultural reference point. Tada! Vancouverism.

The NIMBYism is the same old arguments and points as everywhere else, the only difference is it is steeped in BS political correctness.
 
Large block development is the dominant form everywhere. I'm afraid the greater downtown area of Toronto is being overbuilt with insufficient infrastructure and amenities spaces. Council seems more concerned with getting community improvement contributions to fix up existing amenities than acknowledging sidewalks are narrow, streets are narrow and, transit is mixed traffic surface routes. It's debatable but, most would alos agree downtown has always been deficient in public (green) space before the 100,000 units were built over the last two decades. Parks have been built. They aren't conveniently located for all the neighbourhoods that have seen explosive growth. These spaces take on greater importance given the shrinking sizes of living spaces and the general deterioration in efficient design to maximize salable square footage. The only solutions have been band aid at best. Encourage developers to build POPspaces which are small second rate public spaces. Recently, A promised POPS was used to build a private restaurant patio that may still be unresolved in the courts. Another extreme example was encouraging a developer to include a Plus 15 network since the sidewalk capacity around the development was considered inefficient. This just seems outrageous especially so in a country as Canada that has used it's expansive open spaces and affordability as a selling point for immigration.

15 to 20000 additional apartment units will be built in the few blocks surrounding Yonge and Eglinton Station over the next decade with no increase or even a decline in employment spaces. Many will end up trying to cram themselves on an already at capacity subway line into the core. Facepalm! There's another 15 to 20000 minimum being processed for the extant of the new line. Head Explosion!
 
Last edited:

Attachments

  • LOC2018-0066-The-Grid-Ramsay.pdf
    161.3 KB · Views: 317
It looks like the developer has dropped the height to 16 floors. To me that seems reasonable for the site.

Residents are complaining that it doesn't fit into the context of Inglewood, but IMO there no context at that location. Propose this 1km west and I'd be opposed,but that location isn't representative of Inglewood.
 
Habanero said:
It looks like the developer has dropped the height to 16 floors. To me that seems reasonable for the site.

Residents are complaining that it doesn't fit into the context of Inglewood, but IMO there no context at that location. Propose this 1km west and I'd be opposed,but that location isn't representative of Inglewood.
Click to expand...

Regardless of the appropriateness of the height, which I don't have an opinion on really, entertaining a 63 meter proposal while the in-progress new ARP stipulates 28m for that site does make ARPs seem pointless.

From the letter:

"The proposed LOC presented to the Community of Inglewood indicated by the developer had an initial proposal for a 63 meter (20 storey) tall building with a FAR of 5. This is well over double what the Community and City had agreed upon as the appropriate intensity for this site. The final numbers submitted to the City was a proposed building height of 49 meters (16 storey) and an FAR of 5. For reference, the new draft ARP does not have an FAR of 5 proposed for any of Inglewood, which includes consideration for intensive development at the Blackfoot Truck Stop site. "
 
In Calgary the ARP's seem to be more of a general guideline. Exceptions to the ARP are made routinely. I personally am okay with it, as I don't believe in making broad sweeping static policies that are unbendable.. I prefer the ARP to be a guideline and proposals that are outside of the ARP be dealt with on an individual case. Just my two cents.

As for my opinion on the height, I'm with you, I don't have much of an opinion. I wouldn't want it any higher than the 16 floors. I think that's plenty tall.
JoeUrban said:
Regardless of the appropriateness of the height, which I don't have an opinion on really, entertaining a 63 meter proposal while the in-progress new ARP stipulates 28m for that site does make ARPs seem pointless.

From the letter:

"The proposed LOC presented to the Community of Inglewood indicated by the developer had an initial proposal for a 63 meter (20 storey) tall building with a FAR of 5. This is well over double what the Community and City had agreed upon as the appropriate intensity for this site. The final numbers submitted to the City was a proposed building height of 49 meters (16 storey) and an FAR of 5. For reference, the new draft ARP does not have an FAR of 5 proposed for any of Inglewood, which includes consideration for intensive development at the Blackfoot Truck Stop site. "
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Patrick.1980 said:
In Calgary the ARP's seem to be more of a general guideline. Exceptions to the ARP are made routinely. I personally am okay with it, as I don't believe in making broad sweeping static policies that are unbendable.. I prefer the ARP to be a guideline and proposals that are outside of the ARP be dealt with on an individual case. Just my two cents.

As for my opinion on the height, I'm with you, I don't have much of an opinion. I wouldn't want it any higher than the 16 floors. I think that's plenty tall.
Click to expand...

I think this is ok, but I also get the CA's frustration, they negotiate with the city, they jointly come up with a max density for parts of the community, and then when someone tries to more than double that the city just accepts the proposal and forwards it to the CA knowing that they have now put the CA and the developer into a conflict situation. I'm not sure what the solution is really. It's true the ARP shouldn't perhaps be unbendable, but it also shouldn't be something rarely followed or it's not worth creating.

I think another concern is if they are routinely ignored that opens a door to anti-density candidates for council who might promise to 'protect' redeveloping communities.
 
Last edited:
So Council just approved 1st reading, 2nd and 3rd pending the resolution of the AVPA guidelines.

During the public hearing, an image of the proposed building was shown. Still not final, as no DP has been submitted, but it gives an idea of what is being sought (forgive the screen capture quality):
The Grid.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top