[ChesterCopperpot]

There's an 80 storey tower directly north of this address as part of the 33 Gerrard development - there's no way there's enough separation between the buildings for two 80-storey towers

 

[innsertnamehere]

I bet this thing will get shat on by planning without significant revisions. And before people get angry, it will have nothing to do with the height.

I am also rather interested in seeing the planning justification report.

 

[modernizt]

There is no possible way that the servicing for a tower of this size can be accommodated sufficiently on such a small footprint. This is ridiculous.

 

[whatever]

I'd be curious to see how this relates to the proposals for the Eaton Chelsea lands and the KingSett proposal at Yonge/Gerrard.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

After looking more closely at the map of the area, I don't see how they could fit a highrise of any size here considering the neighboring proposal. Could this site even support a midrise proposal?

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

I've seen much smaller lots for even taller buildings... Dubai for example. Some are super slim and so tight together. Yet it works there. As for weather they will fit here well clearly they do. There's a picture above provided for reference. So I'm not sure why so many are saying it can't fit. Have a look at top of this page.

 

[alexb]

This can fit depending on the depth of the tower,

 

[innsertnamehere]

You need a 25m separation between towers - unless the tower is around 5m wide I doubt it will work.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This can fit depending on the depth of the tower,

I believe this is an old version of the proposal - and it has since evolved.

AoD

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

That's the spirit. Crap all over it before it's even really finalized.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's the spirit. Crap all over it before it's even really finalized.

It shouldn't even have been proposed as is to begin with.

AoD

 

[Forgotten]

Posted by David okinawa (planner at the city of Toronto) on Twitter:

View attachment 81104 View attachment 81105

Good luck, boys. Ha ha.

 

[modernizt]

I've seen much smaller lots for even taller buildings... Dubai for example. Some are super slim and so tight together. Yet it works there. As for weather they will fit here well clearly they do. There's a picture above provided for reference. So I'm not sure why so many are saying it can't fit. Have a look at top of this page.

You're citing Dubai (where lots are generally large and sprawling, by the way, despite slim tower profiles) and telling is that it "works" there. To me, this is very presumptuous. Have you ever lived in a condo, moved into a condo, or moved out of a condo that is crammed onto a tiny site? Have you ever been one of the people who works servicing jobs for these buildings, their garbage handling and removal, for example?

I've seen smaller towers proposed on larger lots that were still almost impossible from this standpoint, so without even seeing the plans, I imagine this project will be similar. The ground plan must be a nightmare.

 

[Strange Advance]

I like its lithe dimensions.

 

[maestro]

It must include additional properties. Developer continue to push the FSI envelope here but, this is leaps and bounds above the 25 to 30 range.