greenleaf said:
This site was also deliberately (it seems) left out of the Mixed Use area 4 of the TOCore Plan (see map on p68 of PDF.)

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-106336.pdf

8.28. Mixed Use Areas 4 contains a mix of uses with a prevailing character of house form and other types of low-rise buildings.
8.29. Development in Mixed Use Areas 4 will:
8.29.1. contain residential, small-scale office, institutional, service, and retail uses that serve the needs of the local community; and
8.29.2. be of a low-rise scale respecting and reinforcing the existing physical character of the neighbourhood, including the prevailing heights, massing, scale, density and building type.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it appears that the inexperienced group who bought this low rise site thought they could sneak a tall building in a low rise neighborhood.

Get that garbage out of here.
 
LMVDR said:
This property is not at the main intersection of the entire city and directly above 2 subway lines and surrounded by tall buildings. Your comparison is foolhearty.
Click to expand...

It's only almost surrounded by mid- and high-rises and within spitting distance of a subway interchange. Yup, country living.
 
LMVDR said:
Like I said, it appears that the inexperienced group who bought this low to mid rise site thought they could sneak a tall building in a low rise neighborhood.

Get that garbage out of here.
Click to expand...

"Low rise neighbourhood"? You ever been there?

Get that garbage out of here.
 
Let's see... 19 floor tower on the East, 12 floor tower on the West, two 12 floor towers to the south, sure sounds low rise to me... **Sarcasm alert!!**
 
The developer closed the purchase of this lot back in Sept 2016 for $17,750,000. They paid quite a premium over what the market rates were at the time, I for one love the design and find the height more or less appropriate for the location. Having lived and worked in this part of the Annex for 20 years I feel that the whole disagreements on height is rubish. Even if you don't live here you can do a street view search and see the high rise buildings that surround it on basically all sides.
 
LMVDR said:
Like I said, it appears that the inexperienced group who bought this low rise site thought they could sneak a tall building in a low rise neighborhood.

Get that garbage out of here.
Click to expand...
Your comments are so non-nonsensical I can only conclude either you don't know the area at all, live in its immediate shadow, or will have your view blocked. Or you resent fine buildings?
 
Ok, so NIMBYs will instead get a somewhat lower generic, slab box. It serves them right (I hope it's green glass). Planners love to zero in on buildings that try a lot harder. Another example is that breathtakingly gorgeous complex planned for King West, reminiscent of an upgraded Habitat - Bark Engels or something? Planners are torturing that proposal.
 
Planners are just doing their jobs. Why does something exceptional have to greatly exceed the zoning? I'm supportive of bonusing for designs the DRP (or whoever) unanimously find exceptional but, the impression from many posts on UT are to give these developers carte blanche for breathtakingly gorgeous proposals and screw zoning. That's sketchy city building.
 
I see it as an incentive. Developers can build any old crap within the zoning. They are signalling that in exchange for an exemption they will provide excellence. Trade.
 
maestro said:
Planners are just doing their jobs. Why does something exceptional have to greatly exceed the zoning? I'm supportive of bonusing for designs the DRP (or whoever) unanimously find exceptional but, the impression from many posts on UT are to give these developers carte blanche for breathtakingly gorgeous proposals and screw zoning. That's sketchy city building.
Click to expand...
Isn’t it the case that Toronto’s zoning is so restrictive, unsystematic and archaic, that pretty much any development exceeds the zoning? I had to go to Committee to get permission to extend my garage by two feet on a 167 foot deep lot, FFS. It seems every single project in this town requires a complex, time-consuming and expensive let’s make a deal negotiation with staff, the local Councillor, and various nimby RA’s. I guess it creates a lot of work for lawyers and bureaucrats, and it does give Councillors access to personal slush funds to pay for their pet projects (or worse), but it’s a helluva way to run a city.
 
buildup said:
I see it as an incentive. Developers can build any old crap within the zoning. They are signalling that in exchange for an exemption they will provide excellence. Trade.
Click to expand...

This isn't excellence that will stand the test of time. It's just trendy. I want both excellence and sound city building. If I had to choose one, I take the latter over the former. Probably won't agree with that.
 
pman said:
Isn’t it the case that Toronto’s zoning is so restrictive, unsystematic and archaic, that pretty much any development exceeds the zoning? I had to go to Committee to get permission to extend my garage by two feet on a 167 foot deep lot, FFS. It seems every single project in this town requires a complex, time-consuming and expensive let’s make a deal negotiation with staff, the local Councillor, and various nimby RA’s. I guess it creates a lot of work for lawyers and bureaucrats, and it does give Councillors access to personal slush funds to pay for their pet projects (or worse), but it’s a helluva way to run a city.
Click to expand...

Developers wouldn't bother putting forth proposals such as this if current site specific zoning was applicable in planning's decisions. 8 Elm is probably the craziest application put forth so far.
 
maestro said:
Planners are just doing their jobs. Why does something exceptional have to greatly exceed the zoning? I'm supportive of bonusing for designs the DRP (or whoever) unanimously find exceptional but, the impression from many posts on UT are to give these developers carte blanche for breathtakingly gorgeous proposals and screw zoning. That's sketchy city building.
Click to expand...

Not saying that I agree with @buildup's approach, but I'd say that slavish adherence to anachronistic single-use zoning is itself 'sketchy city building' and has contributed to the Toronto model of extraordinary density in some places with little to no change in others (the Yellowbelt).

Not to mention that in the last decade or so, a lot of the academic work done on the history of zoning has proven pretty conclusively that in city after city, it was implemented / pushed to keep people of different ethnicities apart and segregate cities along racial lines.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top