travis3000 said:
The city thinks everything is too tall! Can't the developers just override it and appeal to the province? I thought Doug Ford created some legislation that allows unlimited height? Maybe Im confused haha.
Click to expand...

Yeah I knew about the new legislation too, but I didn't fully know what it entailed so a part of me remained pessimistic.
 
travis3000 said:
The city thinks everything is too tall! Can't the developers just override it and appeal to the province? I thought Doug Ford created some legislation that allows unlimited height? Maybe Im confused haha.
Click to expand...
There should should be an exception for letting unique classy looking towers keep their height range for their monumental beautiness in the area lol!
 
Trouble is - if this site alone is any indication - no definitive consensus can be arrived at defining what "unique classy looking towers" actually translates to.
 
The real problem here is the city constantly creating artificial conditions that force ridiculously tall towers or a few specific streets while not allowing for natural urban growth elsewhere. This is a manufactured problem, and frankly Toronto doesn't need dozens upon dozens of 200m plus towers to begin with (not that I'm against them, I am a height enthusiast after all) like there is so much space in this city, and everything is shoved into small areas forcing developers to go big or go home and then they subsequently get told, it's too much sorry.

Like seriously, what does the city expect?
 
Lenser said:
Trouble is - if this site alone is any indication - no definitive consensus can be arrived at defining what "unique classy looking towers" actually translates to.
Click to expand...
Sure it can! This tower catering the rich in the right area Yorkville the millionaire row of Toronto lol! With It's well detailed slim facade which with hardly create huge shadowing in the area during the day. Compared to some of these bulky unappealing shadowing towers like Concord Skys!
 
cd concept said:
Sure it can! This tower catering the rich in the right area Yorkville the millionaire row of Toronto lol! With It's well detailed slim facade which with hardly create huge shadowing in the area during the day. Compared to some of these bulky unappealing shadowing towers like Concord Skys!
Click to expand...


Anything to protect our beloved Jesse Ketchum Park.
 
Like many, I fell in love with 30 Scollard (Gabriel's first skyscraper?), so presumed it was doomed.

It's a miracle 55 Yonge made it through relatively unscathed... pretty sure most of Planning staff were off on extended sick leave.

Recapping the Planning checklist to oppose at OLT or refuse outright:
1. Shadowing (anywhere on anything) √
2. Angled massing (floor-plates) that don't align with the street √
3. Attractive architecture √
 
C-mac said:
Anything to protect our beloved Jesse Ketchum Park.
Click to expand...

Ummm. No

Jesse Ketchum Park isn't even mentioned in the comments.

Belmont House is what's discussed.

****

Also there are other very real issues here, the City doesn't issue Refusal Reports that often, this is an indication they don't see a path to a settlement here.

For everyone, kindly stop trashing planning just because it's a Monday........read the comments. I'm totally fine if you disagree with them, but I see lots of commentary that has nothing to do with what Planning actually said in the report.
 
Northern Light said:
Jesse Ketchum Park isn't even mentioned in the comments.
Click to expand...
Yet The One, which is miles away, was....

....so it's not unreasonable to infer Mr. Ketchum's park was likely in the consideration even if not noted here. As sometimes what isn't mentioned is as important as what is. /sigh
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Yet The One, which is miles away, was....

....so it's not unreasonable to infer Mr. Ketchum's park was likely in the consideration even if not noted. As sometimes what isn't mentioned is as important as what is. /sigh
Click to expand...

Scollard is much further north, the sun is predominately from the south, Scollard is mainly due east of Ketchum. Much different shadow profile.

The concern was over Belmont, because it's mainly north, north-west of this site, so southern sun would cast a shadow.
 
Northern Light said:
Ummm. No

Jesse Ketchum Park isn't even mentioned in the comments.

Belmont House is what's discussed.

****

Also there are other very real issues here, the City doesn't issue Refusal Reports that often, this is an indication they don't see a path to a settlement here.

For everyone, kindly stop trashing planning just because it's a Monday........read the comments. I'm totally fine if you disagree with them, but I see lots of commentary that has nothing to do with what Planning actually said in the report.
Click to expand...
I've got to say alot stuff I've been reading today. Is no go from get go from the planning committee starting with hieght issues etc. Meanwhile the premier says we need more housing lol! We have to put the people somewhere with out moving them around to far in traffic everyday. The downtown core area seems to be a great place for major development hieght to happen being one of the biggest employment area. Just keep the towers slim and spaced out between each other. This method seems to work in the South Core area in my opinion. Stop chopping the height down of buildings that have a potential reason to be there. Not just a box on hieght steroids lol!
 
cd concept said:
I've got to say alot stuff I've been reading today. Is no go from get go from the planning committee starting with hieght issues etc. Meanwhile the premier says we need more housing lol! We have to put the people somewhere with out moving them around to far in traffic everyday. The downtown core area seems to be a great place for major development hieght to happen being one of the biggest employment area. Just keep the towers slim and spaced out between each other. This method seems to work in the South Core area in my opinion. Stop chopping the height down of buildings that have a potential reason to be there. Not just a box on hieght steroids lol!
Click to expand...

The issues w/this building are about many things other than just height. They are about separation distances, and any skyview/daylight at all for prospective residents, among other things.

Yes, height is an issue w/some apps; though, more often, I would suggest that height is a factor in other issues, such as shadowing.

****

Yes we need more housing, no one is arguing differently, including planning.

But we do need to take a moment here.........this City is building more housing than most places in the world, the majority of it, approved by Planning.

The picture is much more shades of grey than black and white.
 
Northern Light said:
Scollard is much further north, the sun is predominately from the south, Scollard is mainly due east of Ketchum. Much different shadow profile.

The concern was over Belmont, because its mainly north, north-west of this site, so southern sun would cast a shadow.
Click to expand...
From what I gather from the maps that this project is due east of Mr. Ketchum's. While Belmont House is due North...so they may have something on the latter. However, The Florian and The Yorkville don't cause similar issues already here? Those are pretty tall in their own right...

...as with the former though, I am having hard time believing that the shadow of this proposal misses it. Let alone the respective school above that.
 
Northern Light said:
Ummm. No

Jesse Ketchum Park isn't even mentioned in the comments.

Belmont House is what's discussed.

****

Also there are other very real issues here, the City doesn't issue Refusal Reports that often, this is an indication they don't see a path to a settlement here.

For everyone, kindly stop trashing planning just because it's a Monday........read the comments. I'm totally fine if you disagree with them, but I see lots of commentary that has nothing to do with what Planning actually said in the report.
Click to expand...

I was being some what facetious. My point was that Jesse Ketchum Park is in the area, of this project, and seeing The One's height increase got shot down because of the park, I can't imagine a new building being closer is okay with the NIMBY's.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top