- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
When was the last time a supertall bought you lunch?
cruzin4u
Senior Member
This is what the DRP said in the past.
"At 80-storeys, they felt it was an opportunity to create a signature skyline building."
"The size of the building, while huge even compared to surrounding buildings, was considered appropriate for its location between two major intersections on a busy artery."
It seems the DRP doesn't know how to follow their own recommendations. Perhaps Jennifer Keesmaat had something to do with it?
The same thing happened with 1 Yorkville. One of the DRP's recommendations was for the developer to lower the floorplate in exchange for more height. Instead, what did they do? They decreased the height.
It seems that many of the DRP's issues with many of these buildings is the bulkiness and floor plate of the towers being too big. So the developers lower the floorplate, in hopes of receiving a height increase, only to get chopped down.
"At 80-storeys, they felt it was an opportunity to create a signature skyline building."
"The size of the building, while huge even compared to surrounding buildings, was considered appropriate for its location between two major intersections on a busy artery."
It seems the DRP doesn't know how to follow their own recommendations. Perhaps Jennifer Keesmaat had something to do with it?
The same thing happened with 1 Yorkville. One of the DRP's recommendations was for the developer to lower the floorplate in exchange for more height. Instead, what did they do? They decreased the height.
It seems that many of the DRP's issues with many of these buildings is the bulkiness and floor plate of the towers being too big. So the developers lower the floorplate, in hopes of receiving a height increase, only to get chopped down.
The DRP can suggest changes to developers in regards to the architecture and city-friendliness. Developers never make changes to the height or square footage based on DRP recommendations. Massing maybe, materials maybe, how a building meets the street, maybe. Never ever ever ever the height. Never.
For numbers, including height, square footage, unit mix, etc., that's all at the Planning Department where they judge the applications against a long list of criteria, a list which fits each site. The DRP does not look at shadowing to any great degree, whereas the planners do. It the Planning Department that recommends to Council whether or not a design should pass based on how well it meets the City's criteria.
42
For numbers, including height, square footage, unit mix, etc., that's all at the Planning Department where they judge the applications against a long list of criteria, a list which fits each site. The DRP does not look at shadowing to any great degree, whereas the planners do. It the Planning Department that recommends to Council whether or not a design should pass based on how well it meets the City's criteria.
42
ushahid
Senior Member
im happy with the design but not with the height.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
71 frigging stories and people are complaining? Unreal. The UT of 2005 would have absolutely exploded at such a proposal.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
travis3000
Active Member
How tall is this one now? At 71 stories I would guess around 770ft? (235m). Why would they reduce the height of this tower? That's such a shame.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
The height of every building in the area is being calculated to prevent it from adding shadows to the playground at Jesse Ketchum school. Four Seasons set the precedent there, and there's no reason to believe another developer would be allowed to do that where everyone until now has not.
Note: it will be 755 feet tall; all the stats are up-to-date in the dataBase file.
42
buildup
Senior Member
As I recall 4S basically agreed to cut a cheque to Jesse Ketchum, which they eagerly accepted, in exchnage for some shadow.
Lost In The Wilds
Banned
Truly unbelievable that a playground can determine the height of neighbouring proposals.
Big Daddy
Senior Member
I don't think anyone is complaint about 71 stories per se, they are complaining because they thought they had 80 and had it taken away.
Is there a new render to get everyone excited?
greenleaf
Senior Member
Planning around shadowing is standard fare in planning in urban centres around the world. Toronto is not unique in that regard.
fedplanner
Active Member
Yup! The buildings of new World Trade Center complex is laid out in such a way to maximize sunlight on the memorial during September 11. There is also concern in NYC regarding more shadows being cast on Central Park due to the ever increasing amount of tall buildings being approved, mainly a product of Bloomberg's support for rezoning.
What UTers may find interesting is the rhetoric out of the new Mayor, Bill de Blasio. He's calling for even taller buildings on the condition of affordable housing inclusion. This has really pissed off the NIMBYs, but has strong support amount affordable housing advocates, lower-income residents, and even the developers since receiving additional densities beyond what current zoning permits in exchange for affordable housing units is seen as a fair incentive. The first big test of the Mayor's plan was the Domino Sugar mega development in Brooklyn.
My thoughts- Toronto planners seem to put a disproportionate amount of weight on shadow impacts when evaluating tall developments, especially Jesie Ketchum which isn't sacrosanct. Come to think of it, this has caused a de facto height limit in several areas of the city.