greenleaf
Senior Member
Are you basing this on the as-of-right limit or the max limit as outlined in the document?
|
|
|
- Thread starter Peepers
- Start date
Are you basing this on the as-of-right limit or the max limit as outlined in the document?
Ramako
Moderator
Maximum height. As-of-right would mean even greater reductions. Ridiculous.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Wouldn't that be the maximum height without going to the city hall to get permission to go over the limit? The Committee of Adjustment is for minor variances, but a major variance would go higher up the food chain at city hall.
maestro
Senior Member
These heights are significantly higher than the previous caps that allowed all the towers you previously mentioned to go forward. I love the Four Seasons height but even the most obssesed height fanatic must have at some point wondered if the site is that appropriate for something that tall. Imagine if the finishes were as refined as Trump.
Overbuilding is a vailid concern and must be determined on a larger context than a site by site basis. The point is to maximum density without overburdening infrastructure and compromising the public realm. Of course, not all properties will be re-developed but, at the same time, any plan must take into account that it is conceivable. Although I'm sure there are more than a few forumers that would be right at home living on Wall Street or the Dubai Marina for a while ... maybe even you.
The current crop of towers still represents an extraordinary amount of speculation in the worldwide real estate market. It's likely once Toronto as the safe haven implodes that we will see a return of more modest heights from which this city was built. It takes a lot of hype to pull off a 400 unit highrise.
Overbuilding is a vailid concern and must be determined on a larger context than a site by site basis. The point is to maximum density without overburdening infrastructure and compromising the public realm. Of course, not all properties will be re-developed but, at the same time, any plan must take into account that it is conceivable. Although I'm sure there are more than a few forumers that would be right at home living on Wall Street or the Dubai Marina for a while ... maybe even you.
The current crop of towers still represents an extraordinary amount of speculation in the worldwide real estate market. It's likely once Toronto as the safe haven implodes that we will see a return of more modest heights from which this city was built. It takes a lot of hype to pull off a 400 unit highrise.
Ramako
Moderator
That would be the maximum height after concessions to the city. As Vaughan argues in the Globe article, this proposal would take away the city's flexibility in negotiating heights. There would be no going beyond the maximum height limit - period.
Last edited:
Ramako
Moderator
In principle I have no problem with the concept. In fact, I appreciate a lot of their proposals regarding massing, forms, spacing, etc. My problem with the plan lies in that it seems as though the height limits chosen for certain areas are just far too low, specifically along Bay, along Bloor and along Yonge south of Dundas. I also think that the city should go highrise north along Yonge following the FIVE model, but that seems to have been thrown out altogether.
The justification for the Front & Simcoe limits I cannot even begin to fathom and that makes me think that no one at the City actually did put any real thought into the finer details of this proposal, but that can't be... right?
Last edited:
doady
Senior Member
If anything the new rules won't be strict enough. I'd like to see a 4-6 storey limit across the entire city, along with a complete ban on elevators. The proposed limits of 47m to 187m seems arbitrary and pointless. If limits are going to be that high, you might as well not have limits at all, because the buildings will still be tall, but they will be uglier as well.
Ramako
Moderator
It seems odd to me that the city would not put any kind of height limit on the sites south of NPS. Conceivably, there's nothing limiting someone from building a 350 metre tower on the Sapphire site, yet this would shadow NPS. I wonder why they'd leave themselves which so much flexibility in that one area of the city.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
A complete ban on elevators would make it very difficault for the elderly and handicaped. Even homes are getting chair lifts to move from one floor to another. Would be against the accessibilty laws here in Ontario.
jn_12
Senior Member
25 stories is still pretty significant. I'd rather three 25 storey buildings (that enhance the fabric of the street level) than one 75 storey building.
Also, I'm sure they've taken into account market values/potential so as to maximize their section 37 potential as well.
so uh, move to Paris?
Also, I'm sure they've taken into account market values/potential so as to maximize their section 37 potential as well.
so uh, move to Paris?
Last edited:
Rowe
Active Member
I agree with jn. Big, tall buildings are 'sexy' to look at but they don't really change how a city funtions or its living standards. I don't what it is about people on here and the height of Toronto's buildings. There is no benefit to extremely tall buildings other than 'mine is bigger than yours.' (I do however enjoy taller building, but I think the height Toronto is at currently serves well.)
Its the quality of the bulding that matters not the quanity.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Ontario Building Code defines "high buildings" as those being seven stories or more in height. So 25 stories is still a high rise.
Fire ladders can only reach 6 or 7 stories, so that would be my own limit for medium rise buildings as well. Above 7 they would be a high rise building.
When I rent a hotel room, I always ask for a room no higher than 7.
Fire ladders can only reach 6 or 7 stories, so that would be my own limit for medium rise buildings as well. Above 7 they would be a high rise building.
When I rent a hotel room, I always ask for a room no higher than 7.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Having harder limits makes more sense to me than the current seemingly totally arbitrary system which depends on outdated zoning, variable developer/city agreements, disregard of some planning documents/zoning with enough pressure, decisions on a single building setting the context for entire neighbourhoods etc.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
NPS is defined as a first tier park, there are regulations proposed such as "New tall buildings cannot, under any circumstance, add net new shadows to any of these parks between 10 AM and 4 PM on September 21st."
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
I totally agree. Basically all we get from having huge buildings is a sexier skyline. But more mid-rise buildings gets the same feel of density across a much wider area.