It's in the core and this is exactly where density like this should happen, not everywhere but defenitily in pockets. This, 1-7 Yonge, the Well, etc.
 
FMCS said:
It's in the core and this is exactly where density like this should happen, not everywhere but defenitily in pockets. This, 1-7 Yonge, the Well, etc.
Click to expand...

Density like this shouldn't just "happen." There are reasonable limits on what can and should be built. As i42 illustrated for another user once, there is tons of extra land that can be redeveloped in downtown, let alone on the edges of downtown (such as in the Portlands). Tall buildings are cool and can be efficient but super high density isn't always the correct path either.
 
The City simply isn't going to like having a redevelopment as large as this one pouring money into the in-lieu funds instead of offering onsite parkland. The parkland dedication is assumed on sites like this, while the in-lieu funds are meant for properties that are simply too squished to make any parkland at ground level pleasant. EDIT: I'm willing to bet that the City will push to replace part of the podium of the northeast tower with park space.

Meanwhile, the dataBase listing has been updated with more stats, like the heights of the towers. The tallest of them, the 80-storey tower at 826 feet, is 66 feet shorter than Aura.

42
 
Last edited:
wolfewood said:
There are reasonable limits on what can and should be built. As i42 illustrated for another user once, there is tons of extra land that can be redeveloped in downtown, let alone on the edges of downtown (such as in the Portlands). Tall buildings are cool and can be efficient but super high density isn't always the correct path either.
Click to expand...

Except the developer doesn't own all the "extra land" elsewhere you are referring to. To your second point, its true "super density isn't always the correct path", which is why its only contemplated in downtown areas, in the core, over subway systems, where people are more likely to walk than own cars. This represents about 1% of the city's area.
 
The meeting will be from 7 to 9 pm in the Mountbatten ballroom of the Chelsea on March 1st.
 
So, in sum. One fewer tower, all towers taller and with slightly larger floorplates. The north-south connection has now been widened to fit a linear park (think of something about the size of June Callwood Park down beside West Harbour City). Walton Street is now a woonerf-style public street (with car access), not a privately owned, publicly accessible space.

An interesting evolution of the initial concept and one which certainly started to get more folks in the audience on side (before Peter presented the revised scheme, many in the crowd were definitely out for blood). I didn't stay for the round-table bit at the end but what I did hear sounded more constructive than combative. I believe some UTers present tonight got images.
 
Thanks. 2 questions:

1. Was there any mention of a PATH connection through the development site? I think the city has a real chance to get the PATH up to College if it wants, and this development would be key to that.
2. Did you happen to get the height increase for the towers? whats the tallest tower in the proposal?
 
I want to refine what @ProjectEnd has reported.

The changes are from of a potential resubmission, but one which has not been finalized yet. The team was looking for feedback tonight on the proposed changes.

Not all of the towers would be taller.
The 50-storey tower in the northwest corner would still be 50 storeys tall. This is the one that would now be part hotel.
The 80-storey tower in the northeast corner would now be 75 storeys tall, but with a larger floor plate.
The 46 and 74-storey towers on the south side of Walton would be combined into one 86-storey tower with a larger floor plate.
The 6-storey office building on the southwest part of the site stays.

We're working on a storey for tomorrow, waiting for high-quality renderings.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top