[maestro]

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.

I see FSI as the basis in creating a great neighbourhood with the desired amount of infrastructure and amenities. From there the built form, usages, heritage values etc. are established.

I find the majority of arguments in Toronto are centred on height and not how it pertains to FSI. The Pemberton Front Street proposal is a great example. This is one where allowing more height despite being out of proportion with the neighbourhood context would still better than the soul sucking garbage put forth. Of course, if only it would be identified as being too dense.

 

[Skeezix]

I see FSI as the basis in creating a great neighbourhood with the desired amount of infrastructure and amenities. From there the built form, usages, heritage values etc. are established.

I find the majority of arguments in Toronto are centred on height and not how it pertains to FSI. The Pemberton Front Street proposal is a great example. This is one where allowing more height despite being out of proportion with the neighbourhood context would still better than the soul sucking garbage put forth. Of course, if only it would be identified as being too dense.

Sure - FSI (and how it translate into GFA) is one guide, among many, that can help in assessing the infrastructure needs of a new community. But it's a weak basis upon which to assess actual developments.

I agree that Toronto has a fixation on height, with the unfortunate result that we often end up with shorter and squatter buildings which are badly designed and which ignore other key planning considerations, but which stay under some arbitrary height limit that has little to no connection with actual planning impacts.

 

[Ramako]

According to Co-Star's database, this is Pemberton.

 

[maestro]

Sure - FSI (and how it translate into GFA) is one guide, among many, that can help in assessing the infrastructure needs of a new community. But it's a weak basis upon which to assess actual developments.

I agree that Toronto has a fixation on height, with the unfortunate result that we often end up with shorter and squatter buildings which are badly designed and which ignore other key planning considerations, but which stay under some arbitrary height limit that has little to no connection with actual planning impacts.

This isn't a new subdivision in Brampton though. Downtown Toronto is a built out established neighbourhood in which increasing road allowances (for wider sidewalks, bike/transit lanes, parking, etc.) is out of the question. Nor did I mean to imply form and function of new development should be defined strictly by FSI. I've being quite vocal about the supertall towers on West 57th that meet New York's FSI requirement. There's a reason why urban planning / DC Zoning tends to be centred on FSI. The built form, usage, etc. of a particular development matter less if the FSI is determined to be inappropriate.

 

[UrbanAffair]

According to Co-Star's database, this is Pemberton.

You're lucky to have access to Co-Star. I had to get a colleague to give me sales for my appraisal demo. That resource is invaluable. (Sorry to go OT)

 

[Skeezix]

This isn't a new subdivision in Brampton though. Downtown Toronto is a built out established neighbourhood in which increasing road allowances (for wider sidewalks, bike/transit lanes, parking, etc.) is out of the question. Nor did I mean to imply form and function of new development should be defined strictly by FSI. I've being quite vocal about the supertall towers on West 57th that meet New York's FSI requirement. There's a reason why urban planning / DC Zoning tends to be centred on FSI. The built form, usage, etc. of a particular development matter less if the FSI is determined to be inappropriate.

We'll have to agree to disagree then. FSI is just a number that is usually meaningless outside an analysis of built-form and its impacts.

 

[innsertnamehere]

We'll have to agree to disagree then. FSI is just a number that is usually meaningless outside an analysis of built-form and its impacts.

yup. Doesn't mean that this project isn't absurd.

 

[Skeezix]

yup. Doesn't mean that this project isn't absurd.

Absolutely.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Would we still be saying that if it was HPA or Foster or Piano or whomever? I think part of the (well-deserved) vitriol here is due to the garbage 'firm' behind it.

 

[Amare]

Would we still be saying that if it was HPA or Foster or Piano or whomever? I think part of the (well-deserved) vitriol here is due to the garbage 'firm' behind it.

I'd still say that the project would be absurd if it were any of those architects were involved. The proposal does not fit with the current character of Elm Street, and the build form is obscene.

But of course, we wouldnt be having this discussion if any of those architects were involved because there's no way in a million years that they would come out with garbage like this.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Would we still be saying that if it was HPA or Foster or Piano or whomever? I think part of the (well-deserved) vitriol here is due to the garbage 'firm' behind it.

My issues aren't with the architecture, it's the insane level of density on a micro lot midblock on a local road with minimal setbacks to adjacent underdeveloped lots. The whole scheme is just insane, whether the building looks good or not..

Those architects may come out with this.. they don't exactly make density decisions. If a developer is demanding you to make a certain amount of square footage on a site.. there aren't many options on a site like this. The better question is if HPA or whoever would have even taken on such an obviously absurd project.

 

[smably]

There was definitely more support on the forum for 1 Scollard, FSI of 37.5 (though I'll point out that I'm on record saying that was a little ridiculous too, even without heritage buildings at grade on that site).

 

[ProjectEnd]

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.

 

[ADRM]

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.

^ That's a great point and, using it as a jumping off point, if we accept that something will ultimately be developed on this site - and likely others along this very stretch - my opinion is that tall, skinny towers are much less offensive and much more considerate of the existing character of the block than many other typologies (including those that are often viewed favourably by our Planning Department.

I think there are legitimate issues here with regard to servicing and heritage preservation, and those'll require smart solutions, but in broad terms I'd much rather see a skinny, 80-storey tower here than a developer buying up a row of these and plopping a fatter tower across multiple existing low-rise buildings along this stretch.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

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.

I know you like the Hong Kong streetscape, but slapping an 80s tower on top of a preserved facade really isn't their way in general. Besides, it's hard to argue scarcity is the issue when you have massive amounts of low/low-medium density developments in the core/shoulder area - that's not a context Hong Kong faced.

Nothing wrong with an out of character street in the urban matrix - it adds interest. On a more "practical" note - if you allow this level of density on such a small site, what is there to argue that each site in the proximate area isn't entitled to a similar level of density? Even the Eaton Chelsea proposal don't push it to that level of intensity, given the overall size of the site. The end result of that won't be anything like the old areas of Kowloon - it would be a wall that has more in common with housing estates there.

Just as an example - the Yau Ma Tei/Temple Street area - always held up as one of the best examples of messy Hong Kong urbanism:

What you have is a fine grained, densely packed streetscape that fills up the lot - not an excessively high density for each individual lot per se. Like just eyeballing this what's the FSI? Around 20? Certainly nothing like 45. In fact, what one can argue is that the initial matrix of the urban area in Kowloon is for the longest time extremely limited due to flight path restrictions by Kai Tak - it never stopped intense urbanism from happening.

AoD