I'll be clear - I don't actually have a problem with this at 67s or even 80s for that matter. I'm just surprised that you had *any* hope that it would actually be approved and constructed at that height...
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'll be clear - I don't actually have a problem with this at 67s or even 80s for that matter. I'm just surprised that you had *any* hope that it would actually be approved and constructed at that height...
Click to expand...
Haha, actually i always have little hope that it gets built according to the application that has been submitted to City Planning
, but after many years of the development going through the process @ City Hall, and hearing of other buildings in the area of similar height getting approved
you get your hopes high
 
Automation Gallery said:
Haha, actually i always have little hope that it gets built according to the application that has been submitted to City Planning
, but after many years of the development going through the process @ City Hall, and hearing of other buildings in the area of similar height getting approved
you get your hopes high
Click to expand...
People were saying from day one of this proposal that Pemberton would never get what they were asking for, for a number of good reasons. Why spend so much time on UrbanToronto and not learn something about the planning process? You only get your hopes up high by ignoring all the other factors that come into play for how height, massing, and GFA are determined by the City, like how large the property is as one example.

42
 
I remember someone even posted about the number of elevators, was not enough for the density of the building.
 
interchange42 said:
Why spend so much time on UrbanToronto and not learn something about the planning process? You only get your hopes up high by ignoring all the other factors that come into play for how height, massing, and GFA are determined by the City, like how large the property is as one example.

42
Click to expand...
Yup i learned one thing by being on UT, is that City Planning are obsessed to certain developers and architects when it comes to approvals in the planning process
So yes you can talk all you want on how projects meet the code to be taller and others don't
, but at the end of the day its a toss up of what they want approved or not
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yup i learned one thing by being on UT, is that City Planning are obsessed to certain developers and architects when it comes to approvals in the planning process
So yes you can talk all you want on how projects meet the code to be taller and others don't
, but at the end of the day its a toss up of what they want approved or not
Click to expand...
Please name the developers and architects that they are obsessed with, and what caused you to put them on your list.

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, i just know it
Click to expand...

I have a list of UrbanToronto members who just make things up to suit their unfounded theories… but I can't find it.

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yup i learned one thing by being on UT, is that City Planning are obsessed to certain developers and architects when it comes to approvals in the planning process
Click to expand...

I think you would find it's the opposite.

Some developers and architects research what City Planning has for hard requirements and where they are flexible. They then create a proposal around those hard limitations and negotiate the other bits. The city approves projects quickly when they're easy to approve.
 
atleast it will be a skyscraper. :) and sorry if it has been discuss before but why TO does not allow taller buildings at smaller plots while other cities do? whats the benefit?
 
interchange42 said:
Because, as as been discussed at length in this thread, the lot is tiny, and even with the recent assembly of adjacent Yonge Street properties, the density ask here was way beyond what Toronto's tall building guidelines and TOcore call for…

…but don't let a couple of planning goals for the city stop you from grasping at tall taller tallest even taller than that.

42
Click to expand...

What do you think the highest density should be for this site?
 
Miles Gilbert Horton said:
What do you think the highest density should be for this site?
Click to expand...
Well, the initial 45.5 FSI ask for the site was clearly shooting for the moon. Nothing should be approved higher than 42, clearly.

42

(More seriously, I don't have time to look up the FSI that was approved at YSL or Aura right now, but I assume that the 67 storeys on this expanded site was derived through a more comparative number with what those two got, likely more so YSL as it's a contemporary project. We'll have to wait for the docs to come out.)
 
I find it tragic what has happened to this intersection. A year ago it was slated to become one of the city's greatest height peaks:

YSL: 344m
Chelsea: 2 x 285m
8 Elm: 259m
415 Yonge: 239m

Now, every single one of these proposals has been chopped or completely killed. I realize that some of them had legitimate issues, but why does reducing the height always have to be part of the solution?
 
NeilV said:
I find it tragic what has happened to this intersection. A year ago it was slated to become one of the city's greatest height peaks:

YSL: 344m
Chelsea: 2 x 285m
8 Elm: 259m
415 Yonge: 239m

Now, every single one of these proposals has been chopped or completely killed. I realize that some of them had legitimate issues, but why does reducing the height always have to be part of the solution?
Click to expand...

Maybe a better question is why is height always a solution (to what?) - especially vis-a-vis this particular site.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Density is a good thing, but at some point density can be overbearing, and reduce quality of life. 40x density is extremely rare in most cities, and frankly, unnecessary and undesirable. The Ent. Dist. generally averages around 12-20x on new approved builds. Is that not dense enough?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top