[Mongo]

I think that this is as good a place to post this as any.

42 Charles Street East is much like many other of the projects popping up like toadstools in Toronto, in that we know the number of storeys planned well before (weeks or months) we find out its height. We know that this project is proposed at 64 storeys, but how many metres? To help with that, I have put together a spreadsheet with most of the Toronto towers greater than 120m in height (proposed, under construction, or completed no earlier than 2003).

Dark red diamonds are residential buildings, and dark blue are office towers. The yellow line is the expected maximum height for a given residential floor count, the green is the expected minimum height, and the purple is the typical height for that floor count. I included bulky architectural roof elements, but did not include spires in the height.

Using this diagram, the height for 42 Charles Street East will be between 190m and 288m, with a most likely height near 220m to 225m.

This diagram might be of more general use whenever a new project is announced with only the number of storeys.

 

[Ramako]

Great idea. I bet adding factors like location or PSF would accurately predict where within a range a particular project will fall... luxury/higher end projects tending to have higher ceiling heights per floor.

 

[MBS]

Great chart! What I usually do is multiply the floor count by 3.5m, which has so far turned out to be very accurate. So I guess this tower will be 224m - consistent with your estimate.

 

[Automation Gallery]

So I guess this tower will be 224m - consistent with your estimate.

We will have to see...on paper it looks like another 200 plus meter structure on our skyline, thats if there is no tampering from the city planning dept.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I can't really make a compelling argument as to why this would be the case. It's already undoubtedly in a high rise area with 1 Bloor just to the north and CASA across the street and there shouldn't be any shadowing concerns at first glance. The only argument I can think of is that planning staff might want to establish Yonge and Bloor as a local height peak - but even then the proposal would be 6 storeys shorter than 1 Bloor (or since your dealing with it in planning policy terms 16 storeys shorter than 1 Bloor since the site is still technically approved for 80 storeys). Imo, so long as servicing issues etc. are dealt with adequately, this should be approved fairly easily.

Aside from concerns made at a planning meeting about the added vehicular pressure on Charles Street E. after X, Casa & BSN were built (X2, Chaz & possibly 42 Charles E. can be added to this stretch), I can't see too many concerns but I just think the height is out of scale. I'm not rabidly opposed about the height, it's just my opinion that it's too high for the area and it may present a problem getting approved at 65 stories. But then maybe it won't, I think the west tower of the Four Seasons is too high but it got through so we'll know soon enough. Before I get bashed, let me say that you won't find me at any community consulting meetings opposing this project but privately I would rather see 15 or 20 levels chopped.

 

[Mongo]

I'm not rabidly opposed to the height, it's just my opinion that it's too high for the area and it may present a problem getting approved at 65 stories.

My own opinion is that this project fits into the larger neighbourhood, since One Bloor at ~238m is only 100m to the NW. It's tall without question, but not out of scale in my opinion.

 

[Ramako]

Aside from concerns made at a planning meeting about the added vehicular pressure on Charles Street E. after X, Casa & BSN were built (X2, Chaz & possibly 42 Charles E. can be added to this stretch), I can't see too many concerns but I just think the height is out of scale. I'm not rabidly opposed to the height, it's just my opinion that it's too high for the area and it may present a problem getting approved at 65 stories. But then maybe it won't, I think the west tower of the Four Seasons is too high but it got through so we'll know soon enough. Before I get bashed, let me say that you won't find me at any community consulting meetings opposing this project but privately I would rather see 15 or 20 levels chopped.

All considerations of vehicular pressure aside, why do you think it's too high? There are several other towers going up in this area of similar height, and if anything a few more would establish that height as being the norm. In fact, I'd like to see the Yonge-Bloor node rival the CBD. Is there some kind of 100-150 metre ambiance that you'd like to preserve there instead?

 

[maestro]

As you say, the height is not the norm. Not everyone desires Yonge & Bloor to rival the CBD either which beyond height is practically impossibile. I'm not sure how you can choose to ignore the impact of this development on the neighbourhood particularly vehicular pressure. I'm not looking forward to the likelihood of more above grade parking or the outcome of the existing landscaping.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

All considerations of vehicular pressure aside, why do you think it's too high? There are several other towers going up in this area of similar height, and if anything a few more would establish that height as being the norm. In fact, I'd like to see the Yonge-Bloor node rival the CBD. Is there some kind of 100-150 metre ambiance that you'd like to preserve there instead?

I think that One Bloor is height appropriate given it's location, what else is going up nearby that is this high?
This is a secondary street that is very busy already. There are two more major projects yet to go up on Charles between Yonge & Jarvis and this one-way street is down to one lane much of the time with all the vehicles that are stopping for deliveries, pickups and such so why put that fact aside? But more to my point (again), I just plain think the height is out of context for the neighbourhood. Call me wrong, that's OK, it's just one man's opinion as I tried to visualize this on Tuesday and again today when I walked past.
On a positive note, if this gets approved as proposed we have one of the city's better developers here so we can hope for something as good as, or better, than Casa.

 

[Ramako]

As you say, the height is not the norm. Not everyone desires Yonge & Bloor to rival the CBD either which beyond height is practically impossibile. I'm not sure how you can choose to ignore the impact of this development on the neighbourhood particularly vehicular pressure. I'm not looking forward to the likelihood of more above grade parking or the outcome of the existing landscaping.

I'm very cognizant of the potentially negative impacts on the neighbourhood, however it sounded to me as though dt_toronto_geek was couching his disapproval of the height on nothing other than the tower simply being too tall, in and of itself. I can appreciate that there are very legitimate concerns on the ground but I disagree with the notion that the height should be cut simply because 'it's too tall'. That's why I was asking him to clarify why he had a problem with the height.

 

[Ramako]

I think that One Bloor is height appropriate given it's location, what else is going up nearby that is this high?
This is a secondary street that is very busy already. There are two more major projects yet to go up on Charles between Yonge & Jarvis and this one-way street is down to one lane much of the time with all the vehicles that are stopping for deliveries, pickups and such so why put that fact aside? But more to my point (again), I just plain think the height is out of context for the neighbourhood. Call me wrong, that's OK, it's just one man's opinion as I tried to visualize this on Tuesday and again today when I walked past.
On a positive note, if this gets approved as proposed we have one of the city's better developers here so we can hope for something as good as, or better, than Casa.

So, to be clear, if somehow traffic and parking were not a problem here, you'd still be opposed to the height, correct?

I appreciatethe "Charles Street is too small" argument but I just don't understand the "it's out of context" argument in light of the fact that you don't have a problem with the height of Casa. To the person walking down Charles Street, Casa is every bit as imposing and out of context as a 200 metre tower. How does shaving 50 metres of the top of this tower realistically change the experience for the pedestrian?

 

[Architecturefan]

I think that One Bloor is height appropriate given it's location, what else is going up nearby that is this high?
This is a secondary street that is very busy already. There are two more major projects yet to go up on Charles between Yonge & Jarvis and this one-way street is down to one lane much of the time with all the vehicles that are stopping for deliveries, pickups and such so why put that fact aside? But more to my point (again), I just plain think the height is out of context for the neighbourhood. Call me wrong, that's OK, it's just one man's opinion as I tried to visualize this on Tuesday and again today when I walked past.
On a positive note, if this gets approved as proposed we have one of the city's better developers here so we can hope for something as good as, or better, than Casa.

Leaving traffic/servicing issues aside (since I don't really have any insight in the area), I think if you put it in present day context it your right it wouldn't be appropriate for the area since heights should probably peak at Yonge and Bloor. But like I said earlier that's leaving One Bloor out of the equation which is basically adjacent to the site. Actually even if you do leave One Bloor out of the equation, CASA, BSN and others if you want to expand the area still make this site in a very high rise neighbourhood and street. Like Ramako said, provided servicing issues are dealt with adequately, once you get beyond a certain height threshold, say 20 storeys, it really doesn't matter if the height of the building is 20, 64 or 164 storeys, the impact is still largely the same on the pedestrian realm. So unless this site shouldn't have anything over 20 storeys I wouldn't agree that chopping 10 storeys off the building would be any use.

Anyhow my point before was just to say that I don't think this site should have much of a problem getting approval from the City, rather than to take issue with anything you said.

 

[Big Daddy]

Height is the new norm. The city has a constrictive region surrounding it to prevent sprawl so up is where it's at. Density also helps immensely to help make transit more efficient and affordable. Let's build 'em tall and the cars will go away as the transit improves.

The old arguments against height no longer apply - Density is the future goal and height is the tool.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

So, to be clear, if somehow traffic and parking were not a problem here, you'd still be opposed to the height, correct?

No. From a pedestrian point of view the volume of traffic on this one-way street and vehicles that park on the street are a real problem that will intensify as development (X2 & Chaz) continues over the next couple of years so I think it's a problem that people should not be shrugging off as if it's insignificant. Even the sidewalks along Charles Street are not wide enough, pedestrian traffic is busy in the morning and afternoon - that is if your able to get past vehicles that are parked up on a sidewalk which I frequently see. I am in no way strongly opposed to the height, but yes, I do think it's too tall for this neighbourhood.

I appreciatethe "Charles Street is too small" argument but I just don't understand the "it's out of context" argument in light of the fact that you don't have a problem with the height of Casa. To the person walking down Charles Street, Casa is every bit as imposing and out of context as a 200 metre tower. How does shaving 50 metres of the top of this tower realistically change the experience for the pedestrian?

Casa is kind of tall for this area but my opinion is that it pushes the height threshold for the neighbourhood, 42 Charles is proposed to be 20 stories taller than Casa. I'm not making a big deal out of this so I won't address it any further because I certainly won't lose any sleep should it get approved as is. I simply stated my option that I think it's too high for the neighbourhood and that I'd be surprised if they get 65 stories approved here.

A project that I do strongly oppose is the proposal on Church St. between Dundonald & Gloucester and I'm involved in helping to save the heritage homes & apartment walk-ups in hopes of working out a more realistic proposal from that developer.

 

[myfive]

On a positive note, if this gets approved as proposed we have one of the city's better developers here so we can hope for something as good as, or better, than Casa.

Going to be tough at the YMCA location is somewhat boxed in. The magic of casa is the amazing views to the West and South. Possibly this is why the want to go up to 65 at this location so the top floors will get over Chaz and Casa for a view to the South. The west views also will be blocked to some extent, expecially southwest towards the city and CN tower for the floors under 45 or so.

The other magical element of CASA is the outdoor pool. With the park setting to the south and west and bulding somewhat limited to the south and west due to the underground subway, it was the perfect confluence of events to have an outdoor pool that soaks in the sun from about 10:30 am in the summer right thru until late in the afternoon. The sunlight opportunities will be much more limited at YMCA. I doubt they would bother with an outdoor pool there but you never know.

So overall, they'll have to weave their magic in other ways to make this building special. Will be interesting to see what they come up with.