Chunky-feeling tower, as if the original Ten York design walked over here and sat down on top of the Distillery District.
 
I wonder what kind of shadow that will cast on trinity street... How nice will it be to hang out in the distillery if the whole place is cold and dark?
 
Can someone explain to me why they allow a tower of this height at the SW corner of the Distillery District that will lead to afternoon shadows over the district while 60 Mill Street on the north side of the district gets slashed to about 12 stories? Obviously more than shadowing at play here but shouldn't shadows be a key consideration. They are both the same distance to the center of the distillery so it can't be simply proximity?
 
At 60 Mill, the new build is in and over a heritage structure, and they'd rather not totally overwhelm it. Here at 31A/31R, there's no heritage structure to mess with.

In regards to the height of 31A/31R, while I agree the shadows from this tower are going to be more impactful than what would be preferable, the City has bargained the developers down by 12 storeys on a site that, at an OMB hearing, they would have a difficult time stopping. I think the City feels they've arrived at a best-case settlement.

42
 
interchange42 said:
At 60 Mill, the new build is in and over a heritage structure, and they'd rather not totally overwhelm it. Here at 31A/31R, there's no heritage structure to mess with.

In regards to the height of 31A/31R, while I agree the shadows from this tower are going to be more impactful than what would be preferable, the City has bargained the developers down by 12 storeys on a site that, at an OMB hearing, they would have a difficult time stopping. I think the City feels they've arrived at a best-case settlement.

42
Click to expand...

Plus context - Mill Street is arguably more sensitive with multiple heritage buildings and existing low-highrise than 31A/R - right by the railway tracks (which is home to two highrises, with more at West Don Lands). The proposed tower is also off to the side away from Trinity - not so the case for 60 Mill - which is right on the gateway.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Seems a reasonable enough compromise. But it's the design that concerns me now. Rather underwhelming, at least in that render. A bit stodgy and bulky.
 
Better this way when it comes to functionality and efficient floor plans. Toronto is too damn expensive and rapidly becoming even more expensive for most people to afford wasted space from fitting a chesterfield in an angled space.
 
maestro said:
Better this way when it comes to functionality and efficient floor plans. Toronto is too damn expensive and rapidly becoming even more expensive for most people to afford wasted space from fitting a chesterfield in an angled space.
Click to expand...

I think there's a happy medium between rectangular box and problematic-for-chesterfields floorplans, though.
 
maestro said:
Better this way when it comes to functionality and efficient floor plans. Toronto is too damn expensive and rapidly becoming even more expensive for most people to afford wasted space from fitting a chesterfield in an angled space.
Click to expand...

Seems that logic can be applied to every market condition and price point, be it bargain or luxury.
 
ADRM said:
I think there's a happy medium between rectangular box and problematic-for-chesterfields floorplans, though.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting the happy medium shifts with affordability and, right now, it's deep on the side of efficiency. Usable Space is the luxury at 750 to 850 a square foot.
 
That ribbon is so close to the eastern two towers (Pure Spirit and the Gooderham). Those streets are going to get zero light. 5 stories seems unneeded.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top