I should have said "shorter" and "fatter" then. I was making a reference to ysl were people bemoaned endlessly that it was too short and fat compared to the previous version.
 
I couldn't care less if it were 259m, 359m or 459m as long as it's an attractive design, meets the street well, and is of good quality. Those currently employed to decide such things aren't comfortable with that level of density so 215m it will be. I await the new rendering. Perhaps it will be golden?
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
I couldn't care less if it were 259m, 359m or 459m as long as it's an attractive design, meets the street well, and is of good quality. Those currently employed to decide such things aren't comfortable with that level of density so 215m it will be. I await the new rendering. Perhaps it will be golden?
Click to expand...
Density had little to do with it, as the 259m version had approximately the same density.
 
Automation Gallery said:
The future park @ the Chelsea development as stated in a previous post
which puzzles me that now city planning decides what development is suitable before a park is built?
Click to expand...
It's the Barbara Ann Scott park that they're concerned about, currently under construction. I didn't realize that there was another park at Chelsea - there was no mention of that one.
 
Revised proposal approved at LPAT:

[15] The podium includes:

• Approximately 945.6 m2 of office space (replacing what is currently on site);
• 1,224.4 m2 of retail space along Yonge Street;
• 471.4 m2 of Community Space;
• The residential entrance on Elm Street, leading to the lobby and elevators;
• The Office Lobby on Elm Street;
• All vehicular access will be to/from Elm Street leading to an internal service area and car elevators which access the 3 levels of the underground parking garage accommodating 100 parking spaces.

Other features include a total of 714 bicycle parking spaces.

Amenity area will be provided as 1,334.2 m2 of indoor space and 677 m2 of outdoor space.

[16] A total of 667 residential units are proposed, broken down as follows:

Bachelor 35 (5.25 %)

1 Bedroom & 1 Bedroom + den 366 (54.87%)

2 Bedrooms 199 (29.84%)

3 Bedrooms 67 (10.04%)
Click to expand...

2. Enter into and register an Agreement with the City pursuant to s. 37 of the Planning Act that secures the following:

a. $2,000,000 to the Affordable Housing Capital Revolving Fund for the provision of off-site affordable housing within Ward 11. The cash contribution is to be payable upon the issuance of the first above-grade building permit and indexed upwardly in accordance with the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index for the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area, reported quarterly by Statistics Canada in Building Construction Price Indexes Publication 327-0058, or its successor, calculated from the date of passage of the zoning by-law amendment authorizing the development to the date of payment;

b. Design, construct, finish and furnish a minimum of 471 m2 of community arts and culture space on the third floor to be leased to the City at no cost for a period of 99 years with a maximum value of $5,000,000 and the provision that, if the actual value of that space is less than $5,000,000, any remaining funds be allocated towards the Affordable Housing Capital Revolving Fund as per 2.a. and b. above. In the alternative, any changes to the location will be to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning;
Click to expand...

2019 CanLII 67593 (ON LPAT) | 8 Elm Park Properties Inc. v Toronto (City) | CanLII

Access all information related to judgment 8 Elm Park Properties Inc. v Toronto (City), 2019 CanLII 67593 (ON LPAT) on CanLII.
www.canlii.org
 
Quite frankly all those involved failed on this one. They got so distracted with height and shadowing that they allowed 30 FAR and the bastardization of a unique streetscape to slip through.
 
isaidso said:
I couldn't care less if it were 259m, 359m or 459m as long as it's an attractive design, meets the street well, and is of good quality. Those currently employed to decide such things aren't comfortable with that level of density so 215m it will be. I await the new rendering. Perhaps it will be golden?
Click to expand...

You' re conflating height with density. Your level of comfort with density simply does not exist. Cities with 259m , 359m, 459m tower and transpotation systems we will never attain would be gobsmacked at the ease to get a 30 FAR development approved in Toronto nevermind the loss of heritage and the width of Elm Street.
 
maestro said:
Cities with 259m , 359m, 459m tower and transpotation systems we will never attain would be gobsmacked at the ease to get a 30 FAR development approved in Toronto nevermind the loss of heritage and the width of Elm Street.
Click to expand...

I took a look at Chicago since we already know Vancouver charges about 5x what Toronto does for density. It seems in Chicago you get a FAR of 6 for free. After that within the loop (rates vary by district) developers pay $31 USD per sqft over, which for this proposal would be about ~$20M CAD. Things like Section 42 still apply in Chicago for parkspace expansion/maintenance.

Of course, Chicago would typically allow mostly above ground parking which offsets most of that cost, versus underground parking in Toronto.
 
Several retail units vacant and also a Krcmar sign on the building along Yonge.

20200122_133517.jpg
20200122_133503.jpg
 
The McDonald's and Swiss Chalet can be added to the development.

There's already many McDonald's within a very short walking distance away.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top