ProjectEnd said:
The issue is that with land becoming scarcer and sites more expensive, like it or not, this is going to be the new norm. If anything is out of place it's the 'current character of Elm Street' itself...

I happen to love this sort of thing because it ensures that while densities increase, a varied and variegated ground floor is retained. Look at much of Kowloon's older landscape to see how this can actually work really well.
Click to expand...


You'd be hard pressed to find another development with this density anywhere or a place where the precedence of a proposal on future development in the neighbourhood. There's nothing like overshadowing a national historic site with another condo tower either. In a possible future, the unused density can be package and taken elsewhere. For now, Toronto growth's won't be hindered if this block of Elm remains untouched.
 
I'd like to see it approved, but doesn't the tower separation issue mean that the development to the north will likely oppose this?
 
Maybe the development to the north is working with the same developer?
 
Pemberton Group also tied to the Chelsea would give that one a lot more legitimacy.
 
I'm surprised no one has brought up Massey Tower in this discussion. It's a very similar concept: a tall, thin tower which extends almost to its property lines by virtue of the expectation that the adjacent heritage properties will remain low rise. The only reason its FSI is lower is because MOD also secured the lot fronting on Victoria. Its FSI is 25.5 as is but if you were to lop that off, it jumps to +/- 37. And Massey is 20 storeys shorter...

Theatre Park is another, albeit slightly shorter, example of the exact same thing (tall, thin, 0-ish setbacks, heritage, etc.).

My point, @maestro, isn't to say that there's a ton of existing precedent for this sort of thing, but merely that it is certainly the direction in which we're heading.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm surprised no one has brought up Massey Tower in this discussion. [...]
Click to expand...

Massey Tower was briefly mentioned above, but in terms of FSI. Your points are well taken, although the sites are not entirely comparable in size. Massey Tower is sufficiently larger that I am not sure 8 Elm can necessarily ride its coattails (although I don't think that's what you were proposing). 8 Elm has a frontage of 19.97 m, while Massey Tower's frontage is 26.98 m. Even if one does lop off the rear portion of the Massey Tower site (that was conveyed to Massey Hall), Massey Tower still has a site area more than double that of 8 Elm (1423.4 sq. m. vs. 658.3 sq. m.). Worth noting that Planning staff wrote a report recommending refusal of Massey Tower, largely due to the lack of tower separation distance from the Heintzman building to the south (staff were unconcerned with the tower separation distance to the north, not entirely because 205 Yonge was a heritage building, but rather because the Ontario Heritage Trust has a heritage easement over it, which (I might be wrong here) is not the case with the Arts and Letters Club). KWT got Massey Tower through Council largely due to the fact that community opposition was muted and, more importantly, Massey Tower offered the only opportunity for Massey Hall to acquire land for an expansion/revitalization. It was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to secure the future for one of Toronto's most important venues. 8 Elm brings neither of those things to the table.

But, I am wading into the details. In a general sense, which is presumably what you meant, you are correct that Massey Hall (and Theatre Park, for which I have no details) represent a similar concept. 8 Elm is not something entirely new.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for that deeper look @Skeezix. I was indeed speaking more generally but it's always good to have as much detail as possible. If anything, I think what your analysis proves is that we are moving in this direction. Massey Tower was introduced six-ish years ago now and in that time, development in Toronto has further evolved.

The question therefore isn't so much 'are we really doing this', but, 'to what degree are we doing this'? In 2022, will we be proposing 120 storey towers on 350sm lots?
 
I'm normally very much in favour of development like this, but I think this one is a bit too far. If this proposal was on a slightly larger lot, say the southwest corner of Elm & Yonge, or the southeast corner of Gould & Yonge, both of which are more strategic locations for density like this, I wouldn't have an issue with it (quality of the architecture aside). But midblock, with no frontage onto Yonge and a massive development occurring right behind it, I think it's too much.

In general though, with proposals like these I think one has to mentally separate the architectural critiques from the planning critiques. This one happens to be open to both, but I think that's a distinction that needs to be made.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Too much what? And why? What bad comes of this? What is the down side?
Click to expand...

Too much density for such a small site, which isn't exactly in an ideal location (no frontage onto a major street, etc). The downside is that it conflicts too much with surrounding proposals, specifically the Chelsea site directly to the north. The bad that comes of this is it could set a bad precedent when it comes to injecting borderline supertall structures onto midblock sites that can't/shouldn't accommodate them.
 
gweed123 said:
Too much density for such a small site, which isn't exactly in an ideal location (no frontage onto a major street, etc). The downside is that it conflicts too much with surrounding proposals, specifically the Chelsea site directly to the north. The bad that comes of this is it could set a bad precedent when it comes to injecting borderline supertall structures onto midblock sites that can't/shouldn't accommodate them.
Click to expand...

Although I agree with the Chelsea site conflict, I disagree with the rest. I'm fine with the location. It doesn't need frontage on a major street, and a mid-block location is fine with me.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Although I agree with the Chelsea site conflict, I disagree with the rest. I'm fine with the location. It doesn't need frontage on a major street, and a mid-block location is fine with me.
Click to expand...

The neighbourhood is certainly fine, but I think the specific site is problematic. The trend, which I think is a good one, has generally been for developers to amass a series of smaller properties before proposing something tall like this. That process was followed just across the street on the east side of Yonge. It can potentially be seen as a play to lower the FAR, but I think it has the added benefit of providing some built-in breathing room for the tower.

Of course, it certainly doesn't help that some of the podiums that have resulted from this method have been less than stellar to say the least. But as I said in an earlier post, architectural critiques should be kept separate from planning critiques. The planning rationale for point tower on a podium is pretty solid.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm surprised no one has brought up Massey Tower in this discussion. It's a very similar concept: a tall, thin tower which extends almost to its property lines by virtue of the expectation that the adjacent heritage properties will remain low rise. The only reason its FSI is lower is because MOD also secured the lot fronting on Victoria. Its FSI is 25.5 as is but if you were to lop that off, it jumps to +/- 37. And Massey is 20 storeys shorter...

Theatre Park is another, albeit slightly shorter, example of the exact same thing (tall, thin, 0-ish setbacks, heritage, etc.).

My point, @maestro, isn't to say that there's a ton of existing precedent for this sort of thing, but merely that it is certainly the direction in which we're heading.
Click to expand...

It's certainly the direction we are going but is the right direction?

Most of all, I don't care for plopping an insensitive tower down one of the better heritage streetscapes in the city. Aside from that, I have mentioned a deal should be made to include the two heritage properties in this proposal to lower the overall FSI. As it stands right now, there is nothing to stop those heritage properties from selling untapped density to another site in a possible future.

There's a ton of existing precedence to overtaxing blocks/neighbourhood through overbuilding. One tower built to a much greater FSI isn't going to be particularly noticeable especially if the height is similar to others in the neighbourhood. A full block would stand out a little and likely wouldn't be among the most desirable real estate. An entire neighbourhood has the potential to becomes the dystopian future neighbourhood that has been the backbone of science fiction since its inception.

Sorry for being pedantic but, 37 FAR expresses a 37 storey building at 100% coverage. How many buildings in the world even achieve the height of 37 floors? There's no real need to build that dense so why even risk it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top