[smably]

So how tall will the final revision actually be? 299 meters?

Only the planning department can answer that for sure, but for reference, here is a screen cap from the shadow study for 80 Bloor, right next door to the west, for March/September 21:

That shadow study is based on a height of a height of 266.5m to the top of the mechanical penthouse for that proposal. This proposal is roughly 20% taller, so... you do the (visual) math. There are no doubt going to be significant shadow impacts at the current height.

 

[cd concept]

Truth is in the pudding as seen in the photo up above . This development is going to be axed down to the same height as 80 Bloor or smaller!

 

[al-z]

At some point the city will have to accept the reality that going a bit beyond 300 metres is dictated by market demand. The initial rendering is very thin, and won't cast a very wide shadow compared to 80 Bloor.

 

[Tulse]

Can we please just move Jesse Ketchum park already? Or put big lights on it?

 

[UrbanFervour]

So tall. And bland.

 

[67Cup]

“Bland” or clean and unadorned? Actually, I wouldn’t want to make that determination for myself on the basis of only four preliminary renders. I don’t think we can even talk about massing yet without a full view of the tower from its longer north-south axis.

 

[smably]

I'm sure these are both unpopular opinions, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say a) there is value in establishing precedents to avoid shadowing on public parks* b) this proposal is actually pretty interesting, architecturally speaking, but its height is one of the least interesting parts of it. (Certainly a lot more interesting than the big swoopy pipe dream at 80 Bloor, for example.)

* As long as the shadowing rules aren't applied with an "evangelical zeal", as in the case of 307 Sherbourne, for example.

 

[Johnny Au]

Can we please just move Jesse Ketchum park already? Or put big lights on it?

How about a mirror to direct sunlight to Jesse Ketchum Park?

Some Alpine towns are doing exactly that.

 

[ferusian]

1200 BAY ST
Ward 11 - Tor & E.York District

Development Applications

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to facilitate the development of the site for an 87-storey mixed-use building comprised of 13,286 square metres of non-residential gross floor area, and 41,612 square metres of residential gross floor area. A total of 332 residential dwelling units are proposed.

 

[CityStay]

Height/skyline monkeys:
"ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh"
Everyone else:
"Good god, this is the very last on the list of things we want"

 

[khris]

i think this is not the final design, this is just for massing. the final design will be definitely shorter than this and might get worse or might get better.

This is not just for massing. This is an actual rendering of the building being proposed. Sure it may change, and probably will, but these aren't cheap massing renders.

I'm not sure if I like this proposal, but I like that Toronto developers are now starting to more frequently test the waters on going further above 300m in height. I suspect this design will be cut down to 300m or so when all is said and done.

I have nothing wrong with the massing, given the constraints of the site, and I would be confident that a building of this calibre would use beautiful, high quality materials in the final design, but I see this development catering only to the extremely wealthy, which feels gross in light of the current recession.

We're not in a recession at this time.

 

[CityStay]

At some point the city will have to accept the reality that going a bit beyond 300 metres is dictated by market demand. The initial rendering is very thin, and won't cast a very wide shadow compared to 80 Bloor.

Yeah right, "market demand".
Not from Torontonians who want to live in their own city but from REITs, private equity funds, hedge fund managers, oligarchs, money launderers..
Market demand.. lol!

 

[rbt]

We're not in a recession at this time.

Only because a recession has a definition with a much slower initial decline; spread over 2 quarters, second quarter worse than the first.

Getting a very large nearly instant decline in one quarter followed by a small uptick may not technically be a recession; but I think it shows the definition of recession is incorrect rather than us not experiencing a similar fiscal challenge. Perhaps the recession definition needs a year over year measure in addition to quarter to quarter measure.

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

Height/skyline monkeys:
"ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh ooh"
Everyone else:
"Good god, this is the very last on the list of things we want"

We? Meaning you speak for and represent us all huh

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

It’s a nice tower simple tower does look a tad thin not sure how it’s structurally gunna hold up being much thinner then the one similar in New York. Never would have thought something this would be placed in that area of the city. This could use a bit more features or some acutectural interest. Like a change in the colour of framing maybe as it goes up the tower a pattern Anything