They are a block apart.. hard to get much closer. The building is taller than the walking distance between the two. (190m vs. around 185m)

What is interesting is if you look at the Shadow study, you can clearly tell that the building has been shaped into that awkward floorplate to "hide" behind the already approved 501 Yonge (Teahouse) in terms of shadow impacts. Since Teahouse is already casting shadows, this guy gets to get built.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hard to believe that there would be shadowing issue with 220 meters from this College + Yonge location to Wellesley + Yonge....that's a crock:eek:
Click to expand...

Many, many, many shadow studies were done of equally many iterations of the project. The only 'crock' here is your assumption that this doesn't matter.

You know, you could always just look at the submitted study (http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...3913632&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false) but yeah, who'd want to do that? Fake news and all.

God, you're exhausting sometimes.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Many, many, many shadow studies were done of equally many iterations of the project. The only 'crock' here is your assumption that this doesn't matter.

You know, you could always just look at the submitted study (http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...3913632&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false) but yeah, who'd want to do that? Fake news and all.

God, you're exhausting sometimes.
Click to expand...

Of course it matters, it's never nice to shadow downtown Toronto parks and parkettes right?, but for gods sake this park is far from being completed and will have a lot more shadowing issues from nearby under construction and existing buildings,
what next... let's plan a park to avoid any future height confrontations:rolleyes:
 
Height is just something to ogle. A park is usable space. A park is localized space while height can be ogled from a far. Maybe that's it? The park means less to you as it isn't a space you would ever use. However, keep in mind, building complete neighbourhoods is what will drive more and more people to buy condos in tall buildings over the longer term. Investors are boom/bust. Really, What's a few metres?

P.S.

It's true, the park doesn't exist yet. It's also true none of those towers you mentioned exist either. Hmmm.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Of course it matters, it's never nice to shadow downtown Toronto parks and parkettes right?, but for gods sake this park is far from being completed and will have a lot more shadowing issues from nearby under construction and existing buildings,
what next... let's plan a park to avoid any future height confrontations:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
When the shadow studies are done, they also take into account all other buildings in the area. The shadow thrown by the proposal in question shows up in a different colour, making it easy to determine what incremental shadowing is being added by it.

No park in the city exists that doesn't have some shadowing, but the idea now is that we don't want to add more shadows to the park. If we keep allowing incremental bites with each surrounding redevelopment, eventually the park would be bathed in shadow.

Toronto has enough places to go high, but we have a paucity of parks in dense areas, so making allowances for sun on parks is not too much of an imposition to place on new development there.

42
 
It's also not infrequently claimed on this forum that this is a uniquely Toronto consideration; shockingly, that is both inaccurate and provincial.

upload_2017-7-5_14-25-4.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-7-5_14-25-4.png
    upload_2017-7-5_14-25-4.png
    209.6 KB · Views: 794
ADRM said:
It's also not infrequently claimed on this forum that this is a uniquely Toronto consideration; shockingly, that is both inaccurate and provincial.
Click to expand...

And to go even beyond those examples, the New York City has a zoning ordinance in 1916 that is designed to maximize light and air (often through setbacks) at street level. Concerns over shadow is hardly new or unique to Toronto.

AoD
 
With the Chelsea, the number of mid-priced hotel rooms that will disappear from the downtown core is rather high.
 
I'm concerned about that too. It doesn't make sense to me that, at a time when City Council is reining in Air B'n'B somewhat, that about 500 hotel rooms are proposed to be removed from the site. I know that both the Pride Committee and Councillor Wong Tam's office are concerned about the loss of hotel facilities in the area as they will hurt Pride's ability to host many events (let alone accommodate people coming to the city then and at other times).

42
 
It's important to remember that 3/4 of the rooms at the Eaton Chelsea are abandoned right now. There is a reason it is getting demolished - it's simply too big for its own good. the building is dated, not easily adaptable, and far, far too large.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top