enrigue8
Active Member
We are not ready for this big tower here.I dont dislike it and it s not a surprise.
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
maestro
Senior Member
We are not ready? Who buildings towers like this?
ADRM
Senior Member
From Jennifer Pagliaro, tweeting from community council:
- Applicant requests a deferral, asking for more time to work on amendments, and says they'll appeal to the OMB
- Councillor Perks chastises developer, saying they deliberately ignored the city's development process; Perks: "If your fallback is to go to the OMB, bring it."
- Councillor KWT says deferral isn't far enough; says developer needs to start from fresh
- Unanimous support of refusal report
- Applicant requests a deferral, asking for more time to work on amendments, and says they'll appeal to the OMB
- Councillor Perks chastises developer, saying they deliberately ignored the city's development process; Perks: "If your fallback is to go to the OMB, bring it."
- Councillor KWT says deferral isn't far enough; says developer needs to start from fresh
- Unanimous support of refusal report
isaidso
Senior Member
Quite a few cities actually. Enrique can be overly enthusiastic but I feel he's right here. The culture is still rapidly changing in Toronto and at times struggles to keep pace. There will always be push back when things change quickly and regulations put in place can become obsolete in 6-7 years.
When a 260m building just off Yonge in the downtown causes consternation what would happen if one double that height was proposed? 500m+ buildings are being proposed all over the world ....and not just in the Gulf States.
Personally, I don't care how high a building is as long as it's of good quality, aesthetically pleasing, meets the street well, and we invest in infrastructure to meet the added density.
Last edited:
maestro
Senior Member
This is hardly an issue on height. I don't know why that still causes so much confusion.
Maybe this will sink in
There are 718 bedrooms
Site area is 658.3m2
Bedroom density = 1, 090,688 beds (?) per square kilometre
Maybe this will sink in
There are 718 bedrooms
Site area is 658.3m2
Bedroom density = 1, 090,688 beds (?) per square kilometre
Last edited:
ADRM
Senior Member
This is not fair commentary as it pertains to this project, specifically. I agree that Toronto has a big and prevalent problem with dogmatic NIMBYism (as many other cities do), and also that both height and density have become areas of particular concern, in some cases for no good reason.
But to suggest that this development and the discussion surrounding it is emblematic of that dynamic is misleading and incorrect. There are a number of legitimate and substantial concerns with this development, including significant servicing issues and heritage preservation.
On the former, to pick just one area of concern, a private garbage collection company would have to be contracted to service the building, that theoretical, as yet unidentified company would have to have in its fleet a collection of trucks with a width of no greater than 10 feet, those vehicles would have to share a servicing bay with delivery and moving vehicles, and would need to make somewhere between 25 and 35 trips in and out of the servicing area for one pick-up alone.
They'd also have to lop off a significant portion of the western edge of the heritage building fronting Elm to build the servicing laneway.
In all, there are a number of factors that our planners consider with any development, as they should. To suggest that the planners took one look at this development and said "nah, too tall/dense, doesn't fit here" is a misleading oversimplification of this specific development process, and thus it certainly doesn't speak to larger concerns about the lack of ambition in our city.
Consilium
Active Member
I think some cities with excessively mass development would allow developers to build at this density. This area is now a major node for building 60 - 80 storeys ever since the construction of Aura. That said, this developer thinks it is okay to build 80s because most of the properties along Yonge in this stretch have been owned by other developers who also want to build 80s. With a floorplate this size the units have to be comparatively small instead of having 75 private residences. If you want to build 80s the project site would have to be along Yonge or the project will draw mass criticism. 
Toronto developers are trying to find every site they can and build on them to their maximum potential. If I were to set a restriction for this site it would be 27.8 FSI (which I think is roughly 50 storeys.) A good site to build 46.0 FSI would be a couple of properties along the east edge of Chelsea Green. I don't think the city will allow a supertall on such sites, even on Yonge Street. If developers' proposals are rejected they will call the members who rejected it bullshit, especially with ambitious proposals. Aura has a larger site than 8 Elm, but the problem for City Council is that developers are reaching for the maximum potential. 8 Elm is not much denser than Aura but I think the locals think the density of Aura is the maximum. Reduce the height, and much would be forgiven.
Toronto developers are trying to find every site they can and build on them to their maximum potential. If I were to set a restriction for this site it would be 27.8 FSI (which I think is roughly 50 storeys.) A good site to build 46.0 FSI would be a couple of properties along the east edge of Chelsea Green. I don't think the city will allow a supertall on such sites, even on Yonge Street. If developers' proposals are rejected they will call the members who rejected it bullshit, especially with ambitious proposals. Aura has a larger site than 8 Elm, but the problem for City Council is that developers are reaching for the maximum potential. 8 Elm is not much denser than Aura but I think the locals think the density of Aura is the maximum. Reduce the height, and much would be forgiven.
maestro
Senior Member
46 times lot coverage is equal to a 46 storeys at at 100% lot coverage. It is not ideal in any situation and you'd be hard pressed to find any development with that number anywhere. Aura is significantly less dense as it sits on a site at least two times the footprint of the tower which is built out with a 4 storey podium. The tower has stepbacks as well.
Manhattanization and supertalls. This is 432 Park's site plan which yields 18 times the land area. I believe New York has raise their density limits since 432 Park started however, the maximum allowed anywhere still doesn't come close to 46 FSI.; a city with nearly as many abandoned subway station than Toronto has built in its urban area.
Manhattanization and supertalls. This is 432 Park's site plan which yields 18 times the land area. I believe New York has raise their density limits since 432 Park started however, the maximum allowed anywhere still doesn't come close to 46 FSI.; a city with nearly as many abandoned subway station than Toronto has built in its urban area.
Attachments
G.L.17
Senior Member
So the owners have decided to waste their time and appeal this...
PROPERTY ADDRESS CASE DESCRIPTION STATUS CASE NUMBER
8 Elm St. 8 Elm Park Properties mixed-use bldg Open PL161269
No Hearings have been scheduled for this case.
8 ELM ST
Ward 27 - Tor & E.York District
►View All Properties
Rezoning Application for proposed 80-storey mixed-use building containing 469 residential units and office space on the second and third floors.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys 80 # of Units 469
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 16 189782 STE 27 OZ Jul 13, 2016 OMB Appeal
PROPERTY ADDRESS CASE DESCRIPTION STATUS CASE NUMBER
8 Elm St. 8 Elm Park Properties mixed-use bldg Open PL161269
No Hearings have been scheduled for this case.
8 ELM ST
Ward 27 - Tor & E.York District
►View All Properties
Rezoning Application for proposed 80-storey mixed-use building containing 469 residential units and office space on the second and third floors.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys 80 # of Units 469
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 16 189782 STE 27 OZ Jul 13, 2016 OMB Appeal
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
Oh man. You know, you gotta pick your battles...
iDANIEL
Active Member
Cresford Developments just unveiled a 98 storey condo development less than 200 meters away from here. This will influence 8 Elm's chances in a positive way.
ADRM
Senior Member
I'm not so sure; there are a number of legitimate concerns about this particular development that are completely separate from both height and density. The precedent linkage isn't always so direct.
G.L.17
Senior Member
Highly unlikely. 11 metre separation from one of 33 Gerrard's 88 storey towers to this 80 storey tower is not gonna cut it for City Planning, and maybe even the OMB. The foundation for the neighbouring heritage buildings would likely be compromised in the hypothetical excavation process, while reconfiguring the western bay of the facade to service garbage delivery is just insane.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The biggest issues here is setbacks, site servicing, and heritage protection, not height. Nobody really cares about the height here I don't think. The problem is that this is too small a site for a tower, and the required servicing is shoehorned in behind a heritage facade with little attention paid to it.
bmiller
Active Member
I'm a big heritage preservation guy, but this facade thing is getting out of hand. If you are going to preserve a building then do just that. Saving the front slab of a beautiful structure has worked
in some cases, but doing the same thing when ever heritage preservation is required is slagging the whole idea. Too many developers now buy property knowing they only need to save the front slab,
makes a mockery of the heritage building standards. I don't blame the developers as much as the planning department or whoever, that allows it to happen.
in some cases, but doing the same thing when ever heritage preservation is required is slagging the whole idea. Too many developers now buy property knowing they only need to save the front slab,
makes a mockery of the heritage building standards. I don't blame the developers as much as the planning department or whoever, that allows it to happen.