jackattack

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 18, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
542
City:
Toronto
How it looks among the 157m "table top" (400 King W highlighted in bright red)

400KingW_1.png


400KingW_2.png


400KingW_3.png
 
Last edited:

concrete_and_light

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
565
Reaction score
1,537
City:
Toronto
Kinda seems like maybe the City should have realized their policies were leading to bad outcomes and made some revisions around planning in the Entertainment District sometime along the way so we didn't end up in this situation.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,252
Kinda seems like maybe the City should have realized their policies were leading to bad outcomes and made some revisions around planning in the Entertainment District sometime along the way so we didn't end up in this situation.
Still not too late to throw a bunch of 200+ metre bldgs. and maybe even a super tall in between to change that
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,158
Reaction score
13,276
City:
Toronto
Kinda seems like maybe the City should have realized their policies were leading to bad outcomes and made some revisions around planning in the Entertainment District sometime along the way so we didn't end up in this situation.
The tabletop is pretty solidly broken at this point but it’s not because the city changed its mind, it was broken through a series of LPAT decisions (and the city approving Mirvish Gehry).

unfortunately almost all soft sites in the area were eaten up before the tabletop was broken.

the whole height limit thing was always ridiculous anyway as the city had no actual policy backing it, they would always just not support an application taller. 400 Front challenged them on that at the LPAT and the LPAT basically told the city to screw off.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,058
Reaction score
25,978
City:
Toronto
Kinda seems like maybe the City should have realized their policies were leading to bad outcomes and made some revisions around planning in the Entertainment District sometime along the way so we didn't end up in this situation.
@innsertnamehere's answer goes some in filling in the history, but stops short of saying…

The City never wanted a tabletop. The City wanted a "clothesline" that would theoretically enhance the height peak at King and Bay, with the buildings getting shorter as they got closer to Spadina. Then the City allowed Festival Tower at the tiff.Bell Lightbox to be built taller than they envisioned in their plan in exchange for the public benefit there. Other developments challenged that, saying "if they got 157 metres, we want 157 metres" to which the OMB said "sure, you deserve the same height even if you don't provide similar benefits" and THAT's what set up the tabletop, not the City but the OMB.

42
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,158
Reaction score
13,276
City:
Toronto
@innsertnamehere's answer goes some in filling in the history, but stops short of saying…

The City never wanted a tabletop. The City wanted a "clothesline" that would theoretically enhance the height peak at King and Bay, with the buildings getting shorter as they got closer to Spadina. Then the City allowed Festival Tower at the tiff.Bell Lightbox to be built taller than they envisioned in their plan in exchange for the public benefit there. Other developments challenged that, saying "if they got 157 metres, we want 157 metres" to which the OMB said "sure, you deserve the same height even if you don't provide similar benefits" and THAT's what set up the tabletop, not the City but the OMB.

42
well what happened is then the city refused to increase the "clothesline" to reflect the change, and in some desperate attempt to keep the pointless "clothesline" policy, refused to approve anything over 157m, perhaps inadvertently changing it from a clothesline to a tabletop.

Lots of blame to go around I guess? It is what it is, and it's more or less gone now. Most recent proposals in the entertainment district exceed 157m.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,016
Reaction score
2,376
Other developments challenged that, saying "if they got 157 metres, we want 157 metres" to which the OMB said "sure, you deserve the same height even if you don't provide similar benefits"
Usually I’m unsympathetic towards Toronto Planning, but I can totally understand why this would rub people in the department the wrong way and cause future intransigence. It’s like Planning tried to institute a density bonus and now the city gets no public benefits out of it.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,058
Reaction score
25,978
City:
Toronto
well what happened is then the city refused to increase the "clothesline" to reflect the change, and in some desperate attempt to keep the pointless "clothesline" policy, refused to approve anything over 157m, perhaps inadvertently changing it from a clothesline to a tabletop.

Lots of blame to go around I guess? It is what it is, and it's more or less gone now. Most recent proposals in the entertainment district exceed 157m.
Yes, once the City allowed more (at Duncan and Adelaide) and the LPAT granted more (at Wellington and Blue Jays Way), newer ones are going taller again. Back before though, everyone got 157 because the OMB was going to hand out to everyone whatever height the City allowed as the tallest in the area. More rules and regs (with more nuances) are bringing things higher in certain spots as well, like at 212 King West.

42
 

concrete_and_light

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
565
Reaction score
1,537
City:
Toronto
@innsertnamehere's answer goes some in filling in the history, but stops short of saying…

The City never wanted a tabletop. The City wanted a "clothesline" that would theoretically enhance the height peak at King and Bay, with the buildings getting shorter as they got closer to Spadina. Then the City allowed Festival Tower at the tiff.Bell Lightbox to be built taller than they envisioned in their plan in exchange for the public benefit there. Other developments challenged that, saying "if they got 157 metres, we want 157 metres" to which the OMB said "sure, you deserve the same height even if you don't provide similar benefits" and THAT's what set up the tabletop, not the City but the OMB.

42

Yeah it definitely makes sense how it started heading on this path. I understand the City didn't want a tabletop but feel like somewhere along the way they should have realized that regardless of whether they wanted it or a not a tabletop was what they were getting and then proactively worked towards not ending up with a tabletop instead of just acquiescing to the tabletop.
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
16,099
Reaction score
34,166
City:
Toronto
Last edited:

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
16,099
Reaction score
34,166
City:
Toronto


Construction Staging Area - 400-420 King Street West (Charlotte Street)

This item will be considered by Toronto and East York Community Council on November 24, 2021. It will be considered by City Council on December 15, 2021, subject to the actions of the Toronto and East York Community Council.


The Development and Timeline

TMG Builders is constructing a 49-storey mixed use condominium development with 612 residential units, two levels of at grade retail/commercial and three-levels of underground parking for 116 parking spaces, at 400-420 King Street West. Permanent access for pedestrians will be from Charlotte Street and King Street West, and vehicle access will be from a rear public laneway.

The site is bounded by a laneway to the north, a two-storey commercial building to the east, King Street West to the south and Charlotte Street to the west.

A detailed review of the construction schedule was undertaken by the developer to minimize the project duration and impacts of the construction on all road users. Based on the information provided by the developer, the entire site will be excavated lot line to lot line on all four sides to a depth of approximately 10 metres.

The major construction activities and associated timeline for the development are described below:
• Demolition: from December 2021 to July 2022;
• Excavation and shoring: from December 2021 to July 2022;
• Below grade formwork: from July 2022 to February 2023;
• Above grade formwork: from February 2023 to December 2025;
• Building envelope phase: from June 2024 to January 2026; and
• Interior finishes stage: from October 2024 to October 2026.
 

Top