elcorrerador said:
North of Queen?
TCHC
Click to expand...
Thanks! That's a huge site then - since it includes the Sherbourne-fronting building too. Wonder if it will be an infill approach or full-on Regent Park-style redevelopment. Seems like there hasn't really been much movement on this process yet - other than a study on Tower Renewal - but can't imagine it's too far off given the massive investment in the area.
 
Northern Light said:
realpolytics said:
Well I was wrong...though I've never understood shadow impacts. Some parks are more important than others?
Click to expand...

Last part first..........yes, actually. Sun-protected parks are specifically listed, not all parks are listed.

****

Let's look at the actual sun/shadow study:

View attachment 498664

View attachment 498665

Shadow impacts in June are negligible:

View attachment 498666



September:

View attachment 498667

Overall, the impacts here aren't severe, particularly due to the time of day.

A great deal of the shadow falls on buildings (Armory/Arena-Community Centre)

Mid-morning is generally a period of low activity.

I think the argument for limiting shadows here would hinge on precedent, if one thinks this could create a wall of similar height all the way along Queen to Jarvis, then this would have to be opposed, the resulting height cap though might be something as low as 7s.

If one believes most of the rest of the block is safe from significant height, this one is not a big difference maker.

***

UT currently records no other applications along Queen west to Jarvis. A quick glance by me suggests, that while possible, development opportunities are constrained from here to George by heritage facades that would be protected and by lot depth limits at only 34M.

The s/e corner of Jarvis/Queen is more interesting.

However, it's in public/non-profit ownership as a shelter.

I think the site to watch for height/shadow issues here will be the block that includes the Petro Canada on Richmond. If assembled with its immediate neighbours, it's a ~30,000ft2 site.
Click to expand...
Good points, it's incremental but I think on a protected park it paves the way for more.

I don't think the rest of the block is safe at all personally...heritage facades seem to be pretty minor obstruction these days with all the cantilevered proposals.

I'm with @ProjectEnd I think mtsa/transit is changing the rules. It's too bad, we could easily have some big density on the north east side of this park BUT...yellowbelt zoning.
 
37 stories now ... the north facade is giving Brooklyn loft vibes but that could just be me
Screenshot 2024-02-23 183608.pngScreenshot 2024-02-23 183556.pngScreenshot 2024-02-23 183543.pngScreenshot 2024-02-23 183458.pngScreenshot 2024-02-23 183437.pngScreenshot 2024-02-23 182938.pngScreenshot 2024-02-23 182913.png
 
I suspect this whole part of queen street/moss park subway station will be the new ground zero for densification and development. I can already see every small building being redeveloped into this type of project, restored heritage base and condo tower on top.
 
realpolytics said:
Good points, it's incremental but I think on a protected park it paves the way for more.

I don't think the rest of the block is safe at all personally...heritage facades seem to be pretty minor obstruction these days with all the cantilevered proposals.

I'm with @ProjectEnd I think mtsa/transit is changing the rules. It's too bad, we could easily have some big density on the north east side of this park BUT...yellowbelt zoning.
Click to expand...

The new helicopter flight path MZO for St. Mike's covers the area around Moss Park, most particularly to the north and south, when west of Sherbourne.

That won't preclude development, but it will cap heights and change some of what's viable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top