Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
58,549
Twenty bucks the city says it needs a well-defined podium that bumps out from below the tower, context and architecture be damned.

Take your twenty off the table.

Everything you see softscaped on the St. George side, on that render is the City's property.

They won't be giving that to the developer, and I'd be very surprised to see a demand to build to the lot line.
 

.dwg

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
620
Reaction score
1,156
City:
Toronto
Yes but they'll want the tower pushed even further back from the podium levels, no? Regardless of the city owned property, the Tall Building Guidelines are pretty rigid.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
58,549
Yes but they'll want the tower pushed even further back from the podium levels, no? Regardless of the city owned property, the Tall Building Guidelines are pretty rigid.

That certainly is possible. I'm thinking they would be comfortable with the same streetwall height as the adjacent buildings, or maybe an extra floor or two.........but I can see push back for a complete vertical.

****

The Guidelines are not binding; or they'd be by-laws. That said; there is a strong desire to adhere to them, if only to prevent 'precedents' that might be regretted. (appealable to LPAT).

Here, I imagine context and local precedent provide some wiggle room.
 

neo

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
37
Reaction score
127
Take your twenty off the table.

Everything you see softscaped on the St. George side, on that render is the City's property.

They won't be giving that to the developer, and I'd be very surprised to see a demand to build to the lot line.

Don't think so... looks like an almost 11m setback on private property to the St. George property line

1621517089939.png


Zoomed out:

1621517065233.png
 

Attachments

  • 1621517003958.png
    1621517003958.png
    328.7 KB · Views: 77

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
58,549

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
58,549
Front Page Story on this one, by Stephanie Calvet is up.

 

billyt23

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
71
Reaction score
122
City:
Toronto
Front Page Story on this one, by Stephanie Calvet is up.

@Northern Light Do you think that if additional towers, nearby and similarly sized were constructed, would trees and other vegetation as depicted or that currently exists along St. George or Lowther be able to coexist?

P.S. Not a well written question but I I am asking about shadowing and tree growth.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
58,549
@Northern Light Do you think that if additional towers, nearby and similarly sized were constructed, would trees and other vegetation as depicted or that currently exists along St. George or Lowther be able to coexist?

P.S. Not a well written question but I I am asking about shadowing and tree growth.

The unsatisfying answer is 'maybe'.

1) Shadowing is a real concern; it can be mitigated, in part, by setbacks, as well as the ROW width (or street-level setback from curb).
You can go quite tall and have lengthy but narrow shadows that move through the day and leave a fair bit of light for local plants.
But if you create really high streetwalls on both side of the road, its certainly a potential problem.

2) Some tree species are more shade tolerant than others, and would probably be fine, as long as there was some sun (Sugar Maple, and Basswood would be obvious choices).
Sugar Maple, however, is not salt-tolerant, while Basswood can only deal w/so much.. Meaning you need to consider that in terms of placement relative to the street or sidewalk (or any surface that might be salted).

3) Changing the species mix also doesn't help an existing sun-loving tree whose light you take away.
In most cases, increasing shadow (to a point) will not kill a well established tree; though it may severely impair its growth, and somewhat diminish its health.

But going from a mostly sun to mostly shade would be hard on a tree. So it's a question of the degree and pace of change; as well as mitigation.

4) Cumulative effect; overtime, is everything.
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
6,033
Neither this height nor even something much shorter is allowed today. The maximum height through the Annex is 12 metres (3 storeys or maybe 4 short storeys) with up to 14 metres on St. George (4 storeys). So anyone wanting to build anything taller such as even this existing building has to rezone which is multiple years and millions of dollars. Annex Residents Corp will fight you to the death for anything. Neighborhoods are untouchable. Even 30 story buildings on Bloor West at subway stations are fought like an invading barbarian force. Yet we need housing and the market reflects that. So stupid things like this happen instead of an orderly use of the land Toronto actually has, thousands and thousands of acres untouchable where the people with power live. This site redevelopment is a symptom of that problem.

edited to correct heights

Exactly this. This will drive @AlexBozikovic crazy.
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,753
Reaction score
6,033
It is hard to believe that in a city in a housing crisis, the only way to build is to tear down perfectly good existing rental units. Who thinks this is good planning, policy or outcome?
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,541
Reaction score
6,467
Front Page Story on this one, by Stephanie Calvet is up.

I'm warming up to its Uno Prii references.
 

nika

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2021
Messages
4
Reaction score
4
Please do not tell me they're are going to demolish this building.. This is a great community, because of the low rise buildings. In 20 years Toronto is going to wonder where it all went wrong.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,091
Reaction score
58,549
It is hard to believe that in a city in a housing crisis, the only way to build is to tear down perfectly good existing rental units. Who thinks this is good planning, policy or outcome?

I agree w/that..........

Though I think it's important to offer a couple of caveats.

1) The 'housing crisis' is a self-inflicted wound in so far as we continue to approve massive population growth through both immigration, in the traditional sense, AND have a vast influx of foreign students.

For the record, I take no issue w/either of these per se. But we chose not to build any housing for the new students........., and less than required for the number of immigrants.

Toronto alone has seen growth of foreign students to the tune of 50,000 over the last few years..............that's a staggering number.
Think of that as 50,000 housing units; while our colleges and universities built well less than 10% of that number between them in student housing.

2) We continue to talk about the housing crisis as if there aren't straight-forward solutions. We all know about the obvious; upzoning 'The Avenues'; reducing certain standards (minimum parking); lower application fees for smaller developments and elimination of many of those applications through upzoning/more permissive zoning.

But frankly, we tend to omit the simple act of allowing a 4-plex either as new build or as a conversion of an existing home; we also tend to omit the need to build more 'grid'. That one is expensive, but fully pays off if it comes with upzoning and a new transit route.

This is exactly what we did in the past when modern-day Dundas Street east was cobbled together; when College was connected to Carlton; when Harbord was connected to Hoskin; and Wellesley etc etc.

A single new E-W Street between Eglinton and Lawrence, running for 10km, with simple 'Avenues' Zoning (that could include buffers to adjacent SFH areas would deliver over 20,000 units of housing, conservatively, assuming a max height of 8 storeys.)

3 Apply that upzoning to the mostly bungalow 'major' roads like O'Connor Drive; or Warden Avenue.......this is not that hard. In those cases, if we don't want to buffer adjacent homes at great cost, we can simply lower the height; a shift from 1s or 2s to 3s, as-of-right; and rental/mixed-use as-of-right would do wonders.

4. But it's also not hard to choose to fund post-secondary properly, allow any existing foreign students to complete their education, but downsize the number somewhat until housing catches up to demand. It's also not hard to fund additional student housing on campus; or to create additional university campuses. I don't want an endless number of them, but it's increasingly absurd that Barrie lacks a full University as an example.
 

Top