maestro said:
There's more to a big city than just height. That's something the majority of those cities building those 459m, 559m, 669m towers don't quite get. This proposal is also several times denser than those towers; something that is definitely lost on your simplistic view of city building. IIRC, The Burg Khalifa is around 5 FAR. This one is over 40 FAR.

Millions of New Yorkers have been indirectly impacted by the tall towers on West 57th. Most won't know or care. A select few will appreciate the taller skyline. Others will noticed the increase in shadowing over Central Park and find it unfortunate. All this for multi-billionaires with more money that what to do with to have super lux real estate in New York they will seldom need.
Click to expand...

It's a bit presumptuous to say other cities "don't get" how to build cities and that Toronto has it all figured out. Especially when they have several times the population and arguably outclass Toronto in many other areas. Rather, each city has its own approach to development due to a multitude of factors.
 
Personally I dont care about shadows - they are going to happen whether it's 40 stories or 100 stories. I'm more concerned about the rediculous density in this tower. the units in this building will be so claustrophobically small they will be practically unlivable . the only users will be those who can't afford something nicer, hence it will likely become a ghetto building within a few short years.
 
P23 said:
It's a bit presumptuous to say other cities "don't get" how to build cities and that Toronto has it all figured out. Especially when they have several times the population and arguably outclass Toronto in many other areas. Rather, each city has its own approach to development due to a multitude of factors.
Click to expand...


Whoa. way to draw conclusions. I'm once of the most vocal on how screwed up planning is in Toronto. They don't all have several times the population of Toronto. Actually I wouldn't even say the majority has several times the population. Hard to say as everyone calculates population/metro area differently. I've been to a number of those cities. I don't care for the planning around many of these towers. It's usually height for the sake of height with big crowns push it up even more. (not that big crowns are a bad thing) Coverage usually doesn't justify building that tall. Street level is reminiscent of what an urbanite thinks of the 905 with superior landscaping and finishes.
 
The community consultation for this ridiculous project will be on Sept. 20, between 7 and 9 pm, at the Rossetti Room of the Chelsea.
 
Love this type of density and one gets the added bonus of shade from the sun. As always, these things are only successful when they pay attention to the details, use quality materials, and the City makes adequate upgrades to our infrastructure.
 
ADRM said:
Why is this project ridiculous?
Click to expand...
Just looking at one aspect of the proposal, next door, the 33 Gerrard proposal, which this is less that 25 metres from, has a GFA of about 17.5 for its lot (while that number may change a little, it won't likely go up any), whereas this proposal is at 45.6 times coverage.

I wonder what the highest GFA that's been approved is, not sure, but I think it's quite a bit less than 45.6 times.

42
 
Yeah, the FSI for MOD's Massey Tower, which is a 60-storey tower on a tiny, complicated site, is 26.6. I believe there can be a certain arbitrariness and irrelevance to FSI figures, but honestly, 45.6 times is just wow....
 
interchange42 said:
Just looking at one aspect of the proposal, next door, the 33 Gerrard proposal, which this is less that 25 metres from, has a GFA of about 17.5 for its lot (while that number may change a little, it won't likely go up any), whereas this proposal is at 45.6 times coverage.

I wonder what the highest GFA that's been approved is, not sure, but I think it's quite a bit less than 45.6 times.

42
Click to expand...

Drumpf Tower was approved at 45.7 I believe:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2003/agendas/council/cc030204/to1rpt/cl010.pdf (p. 12) - but utterly different urban context, and it didn't end up being that dense either.

AoD
 
Skeezix said:
Yeah, the FSI for MOD's Massey Tower, which is a 60-storey tower on a tiny, complicated site, is 26.6. I believe there can be a certain arbitrariness and irrelevance to FSI figures, but honestly, 45.6 times is just wow....
Click to expand...

Hard to fine a measure that defines a neighbourhood more.
 
interchange42 said:
Just looking at one aspect of the proposal, next door, the 33 Gerrard proposal, which this is less that 25 metres from, has a GFA of about 17.5 for its lot (while that number may change a little, it won't likely go up any), whereas this proposal is at 45.6 times coverage.

I wonder what the highest GFA that's been approved is, not sure, but I think it's quite a bit less than 45.6 times.

42
Click to expand...

All true and good points, but I do think there's a difference between precedent-breaking and ridiculous.
 
maestro said:
Hard to fine a measure that defines a neighbourhood more.
Click to expand...

In a low-rise residential neighbourhood, FSI can be one (but not the only) good measure of the compatibility of a proposal with its surroundings, although I'd be very reluctant to say that it defines a neighbourhood. Outside that context, FSI figures are interesting to know, but tend to be academic, often bear little relevance to the merits (or lack thereof) of a project, and are prone to site-specific quirks that makes evaluating or comparing FSI somewhat of a pointless exercise. When someone's argument for or against a proposal largely amounts to "but the FSI is x", that often means that they can't think of anything valid to say about the actual strengths and/or impacts. Good built-form, design and a strong assessment of impacts and contributions should result in an FSI that is appropriate by virtue of the planning exercise, not by virtue of a number and how that number compares to other numbers. FSI should flow from the planning analysis, and not direct it.

Sometimes, though, the FSI figure can jump out at you, and suggests (but does not conclude) that what is being proposed is very different than what has happened before.
 
Last edited:
Hence, "Just looking at one aspect of the proposal".

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top