bmiller
Active Member
That is one major opposition stance. There can't be much more to object to.
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
NeilV
Active Member
No surprises there. 266 meters is considered outrageously tall for this location. I can't wait to see what happens with the 1200 Bay proposal!
Last edited:
rbt
Senior Member
How do you figure that? It's 220m from a 310m tall building and 280m from a 257m tall building.
80 Bloor at 266m would fit in quite well and has 60,000 pphpd of southbound subway capacity within 5 minute walk (Yonge South and Spadina South). Seems a great spot.
The shadowing concern is the only real reason to restrict height here; and IMO that enforcement should be quite firm.
AlexBozikovic
Active Member
As I understand it, the issue with the height is that city planning wants the peak of the skyline to be at Yonge and Bloor. Tower heights are supposed to descend as you move away from that point.
There is a similar “clothesline” idea in play downtown, along King Street, but that was never made official, and the city has gotten absolutely shredded by the OMB when they tried to invoke it. On Bloor, there is a policy in place.
Obviously this isn’t the only issue with 80 Bloor (or 1200 Bay) but it’s a big one.
There is a similar “clothesline” idea in play downtown, along King Street, but that was never made official, and the city has gotten absolutely shredded by the OMB when they tried to invoke it. On Bloor, there is a policy in place.
Obviously this isn’t the only issue with 80 Bloor (or 1200 Bay) but it’s a big one.
Benito
Senior Member
From the GYRA newsletter I received today.
“ 80-82 BLOOR ST. AND YORKVILLE PARK EXPANSION
As you may know from our previous GYRA Newsletters, there had been an application submitted several years ago for a re-development of 80-82 Bloor St. W. for a multi-use condominium development with retail and office space. Harry Rosen occupies 82 Bloor on the west part of this proposed development parcel while 80 Bloor is the mid-rise office building with retail at the street level (GoodLife Fitness is located in the building).
This application for 2 relatively thin but very tall condominium towers (70 and 76 storeys) with retail and office space was headed for an LPAT (formerly OMB) hearing for resolution due to opposition put forward by City Planning and other stakeholders including GYRA. However, there was a late breakthrough that occurred prior to the LPAT hearing, which had the support of all of those who opposed the application.
As a result, we are very pleased to report that City Council, at their meeting held a few months ago, approved the developer’s application which now includes an expansion of the Yorkville Village Park from Bellair St. to Bay St. The building known as 1240 Bay St., also affectionately known as the TTC building because of its 2 subway entrances currently on that land, will be become part of this new development land assembly and will eventually be torn down to make way for the park expansion. The number and location of subway entrances will be a TTC decision. The developer of 80-82 Bloor will be paying for all costs related to the lease buyouts, demolition, and cost of the park expansion, which will then become City property. For several years, this park expansion has been one of GYRA’s major goals for our neighbourhood, so acquiring this amount of park land in the centre of the city is a very big win for the entire Greater Yorkville area. It will provide much-needed breathing room from the many buildings engulfing this neighbourhood. It must be
noted that Councillor Mike Layton, City Planning staff, ABC Residents Association, Bloor-Yorkville BIA and GYRA all worked together to achieve this remarkable outcome for our neighbourhood.”
“ 80-82 BLOOR ST. AND YORKVILLE PARK EXPANSION
As you may know from our previous GYRA Newsletters, there had been an application submitted several years ago for a re-development of 80-82 Bloor St. W. for a multi-use condominium development with retail and office space. Harry Rosen occupies 82 Bloor on the west part of this proposed development parcel while 80 Bloor is the mid-rise office building with retail at the street level (GoodLife Fitness is located in the building).
This application for 2 relatively thin but very tall condominium towers (70 and 76 storeys) with retail and office space was headed for an LPAT (formerly OMB) hearing for resolution due to opposition put forward by City Planning and other stakeholders including GYRA. However, there was a late breakthrough that occurred prior to the LPAT hearing, which had the support of all of those who opposed the application.
As a result, we are very pleased to report that City Council, at their meeting held a few months ago, approved the developer’s application which now includes an expansion of the Yorkville Village Park from Bellair St. to Bay St. The building known as 1240 Bay St., also affectionately known as the TTC building because of its 2 subway entrances currently on that land, will be become part of this new development land assembly and will eventually be torn down to make way for the park expansion. The number and location of subway entrances will be a TTC decision. The developer of 80-82 Bloor will be paying for all costs related to the lease buyouts, demolition, and cost of the park expansion, which will then become City property. For several years, this park expansion has been one of GYRA’s major goals for our neighbourhood, so acquiring this amount of park land in the centre of the city is a very big win for the entire Greater Yorkville area. It will provide much-needed breathing room from the many buildings engulfing this neighbourhood. It must be
noted that Councillor Mike Layton, City Planning staff, ABC Residents Association, Bloor-Yorkville BIA and GYRA all worked together to achieve this remarkable outcome for our neighbourhood.”
madknife
Active Member
That sounds amazing! A super tall PLUS more parkland!
bilked
Senior Member
3Dementia
Senior Member
I assume that the supertall you are referencing is 1200 Bay?
I'm very confused:
1. Odd that we are learning that "City Council, at their meeting held a few months ago, approved the developer’s application" ... from a newsletter.
2. I believe the recent re-submission for the 2 towers was 78 storeys/260metres for the west tower (not 266m as mentioned above) and a 76 storey east tower. The newsletter mentions 76 storeys and 70 storeys.
3. I guess I should get on GYRA's mailing list.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I hope they hire the original landscape architects for the job:
Village of Yorkville Park
olesonworlandarchitects.com
AoD
3Dementia
Senior Member
I hope they hire the original landscape architects for the job:
Village of Yorkville Park
AoD
^ can you shed any light on my question regarding the "approved by Council" news via the newsletter? Thanks.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
^ can you shed any light on my question regarding the "approved by Council" news via the newsletter? Thanks.
The giveaway is the July City Council - July 29th staff report:
The City Solicitor recommends that:
1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to this Report from the City Solicitor.
2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential recommendations contained in Confidential Attachment 1 and Confidential Appendix A to the report (July 29 , 2020) of the City Solicitor, at the sole discretion of the City Solicito
Motions (City Council) |
Report of Committee of the Whole July 29, 2020 at 5:23 p.m. - Speaker Nunziata advised that City Council had completed its closed session consideration of Item TE16.10 headed "80-82 Bloor Street West - Zoning By-law Amendment Application - Request for Direction Report". No motions were placed in the closed session. City Council would now proceed with the public debate on the Item. 1 - Motion to Amend Item (Additional) moved by Councillor Mike Layton (Carried) That City Council adopt the following recommendations in the supplementary report (July 29, 2020) from the City Solicitor [TE16.10a], amended to read as follows: 1. City Council adopt the confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (July 29, 2020) from the City Solicitor, as amended by the confidential attachment to this motion. 2. City Council authorize the public release of the confidential recommendations contained in Confidential Attachment 1, as amended, and Confidential Appendix A to the report (July 29 , 2020) of the City Solicitor, at the sole discretion of the City Solicitor. Motion to Adopt Item as Amended (Carried) Point of Order by Councillor Mike Layton Councillor Layton, on a Point of Order, stated that he may need to go into closed session on Item TE16.10 and that a supplementary report on the item is expected tomorrow. Councillor Layton further stated that if Council will be meeting in closed session, he would request that it be tomorrow, if possible. Ruling by Speaker Frances Nunziata Speaker Nunziata accepted the Point of Order and ruled that Council would consider the timing of a closed session when Council considers tomorrow's Order Paper. Speaker Nunziata further ruled that any Members who wish to meet in closed session on an Item should advise the City Clerk. |
Also check out the content of the neighbourhood association and the Transmetro (via lawyer) letter.
AoD
Last edited:
3Dementia
Senior Member
Thanks... I think LOL!
Does this double-speak mean the "solicitor's sole discretion" to release news of the approval of a major development ... was in fact released to a neighbourhood association but not UT and the rest of the world?
Does this double-speak mean the "solicitor's sole discretion" to release news of the approval of a major development ... was in fact released to a neighbourhood association but not UT and the rest of the world?
Bjays92
Senior Member
Does this bode well for 1200 bay all the sudden? As mentioned in the 1200 bay thread, separation was an issue which is likely addressed now, meaning the prospects of both these projects getting built, at least in some form is more likely now right?
3Dementia
Senior Member
I couldn't find a site plan for the original 80 Bloor W submission but the re-submission site plan (link below) does show a somewhat similar separation (at least in the middle between the two projects) as the 1200 Bay suggested block plan (screenshots from the UT database). Not sure what this may mean for 1200 Bay.
I guess AoD decided to go to bed before mid-night without answering my "approval" or not post above yours
80 Bloor West site (new submission): https://cdn.skyrisecities.com/sites/default/files/images/articles/2020/06/42423/42423-140968.jpg
Last edited: