[CapitalSeven]

Let's hope not. A further triumph of greed and philistinism over heritage and aesthetics in Toronto. While the proposed building is fine in and of itself (more Clewes, of a piece with his other buildings, in no way unique) it doesn't justify breaking nearly every guideline in place. Do we deliberately want to create a situation where there is virtually nowhere you can take a picture of the Ontario Legislature alone from?

It doesn't have to be all sky or no sky. I think most people want a balance, and like seeing the sky, even in Toronto. I would not care to meet a person who never cared to look at the sky, or to visit a city built on the principle that seeing it didn't matter.

 

[maestro]

The current proposal and the city's counter offer aren't that far apart. (well, only looked at the heights) I'm sure a settlement will be reached fairly quick.

 

[alklay]

Agreed. It appears that the parties are close to a solution.

 

[Strange Advance]

What's the point of demolishing the old Four Seasons (surely still eminently habitable) for these compromised towers? The original plan would have made the razing defensible, but not these.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Strange Advance:

Ding ding ding! That said, I think a tower recladding/demolition of the podium is in order.

AoD

 

[maestro]

What's the point of demolishing the old Four Seasons (surely still eminently habitable) for these compromised towers? The original plan would have made the razing defensible, but not these.

I don't know however, it is a 40 year old tower with, if I remember correctly, one level of parking.

 

[Edward Skira]

What's the point of demolishing the old Four Seasons (surely still eminently habitable) for these compromised towers? The original plan would have made the razing defensible, but not these.

From posts 58 & 59


01-30-2008, 10:44 AM

3Dementia
Senior UT Member

Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,345

I'm not entirely sure about the building's history but I think it was actually planned/built as a residential tower before Hyatt picked it up (and eventually sold to Four Seasons).

If the building were to be saved, I think it would be very difficult to market a retro-fitted tower because of the very low (almost oppressive) ceiling heights in the suites.
__________________
GO TALL... OR DON'T GO UP AT ALL. BTW, twitter is for ... twits

#59
01-30-2008, 10:58 AM
Architecturefan
UT Member

Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 134

That's exactly it, although the tower was great when it was built, its now dated. That would be fine in some areas of the city, but with such a prime location simply retro-fitting it would be a waste.

 

[Mike in TO]

The current proposal and the city's counter offer aren't that far apart. (well, only looked at the heights) I'm sure a settlement will be reached fairly quick.

Agreed. It appears that the parties are close to a solution.

They are still pretty far apart - the planning department's counter proposal represents a 25% decrease in density. That would have significant ramifications on the pro-forma and project viability – especially when the significant demolition, insurance and carrying-costs are considered. This new project would likely have to break the current upper boundaries of luxury living (and pricing) to work if even more density is to be shaved off.

I'm almost more concerned about the proposed 1050 square meter floor-plate of the north tower then the height of the south tower - that is a very large slab like structure looming over Yorkville. Secondly Toronto has very very few true view corridors that should be protected. This proposal is certainly worth having a debate about planning policy and guidelines.

For those who don't want to see any 'sky', there are plenty of other directions that you can turn to look at buildings, unfortunately there is only one direction in which one can view the legislature head on.

 

[Ziggy]

Based on the images shown in the planning document, it doesn't seem to me that the view corridor impact is that big of a deal. Here's the image that showed the most significant view impact:

 

[maestro]

^As a fan of tall buildings I can't say that I'm particular impressed by what you are implying. I'd much rather consider this as a classic case of the "grass is greener" bug that can be easily cured by an extended vacation in the Dubai Marina.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Based on the images shown in the planning document, it doesn't seem to me that the view corridor impact is that big of a deal. Here's the image that showed the most significant view impact:

Or if one walks, like myself, the view from the east side of University Ave.

It's not as bad as I originally envisioned, I had an image of something rising well beyond this. Somewhere between the City's proposed 116m to the 143m that the developer is asking for (south tower) could be workable.

 

[yyzer]

posted at Urbanation's twitter feed........no idea if this means that it is approved? and at what height?

Councillor Jenkins: modified proposal at the current 4 Seasons Hotel site @ 21 Avenue approved, revising the height of the 2 future bldgs..

 

[BMyers]

Email from Councillor Jenkins:

21 Avenue Road (Four Seasons) Development (TE30.4)
Council approved a modified proposal to redevelop the current Four Seasons Hotel site at 21 Avenue Road, revising the height of two proposed residential towers. Planning staff had recommended that the application not be approved and they also did not support the modified proposal by Councillor Kyle Rae - for reasons which included the protection of the "view shed" of the Ontario Legislative Assembly (OLA) building from University Avenue. Staff noted that the revised heights of the proposed towers will detract from the visual dominance of the OLA building - which was intentionally and carefully placed to be a highly visible and symbolic place at the head of University Avenue. I voted in favour of the staff report and against the modified proposal.

 

[Solaris]

thanks BMyers ~

clearly Councillor Jenkins is trying to distant himself from the Council decision to approve this proposal ... LOL

Council approved a modified proposal...

...Planning staff had recommended that the application not be approved...

...I voted in favour of the staff report and against the modified proposal.

 

[Mike in TO]

The proposal continues to evolve. The Ontario Legislative Assembly has sought to take part in the OMB hearing, and that was granted at a March 24th pre-hearing. There is another revision which has lowered the height of the south tower from and 143-to-127 metres, and increased the height of the north tower from 98-to-133 metres. Secondly, the separation distance between the two towers has been increased.

The revisions apparently have the support of council and a sec 37 deal includes $1m for a local park and streetscape improvements as well as $500,000 towards the Toronto Refence Library renovation. The 'Friends of Yorkville' - a residents group opposed to earlier proposals has withdrawn from the hearing. The hearing began on March 30th and following a break will continue from April 12th to April 23rd.