Bulloch said:
Well Concord new construction office 12 1/2 feet wide at 357 1/2 just south of Zanzibar was sold on dec 21,2020 for 7.6 million dollars from Cresford. it is on land registry record but nothing for YSL Lot and if exiting sold Ysl condos contracts still in place then that’s the only thing make sense that cresford and concord joined for Ysl project. one thing for sure there won’t be a little park at 357a & 357 1/2 which we heard of previously instead of park concord might have different plans for south of YSL.
Click to expand...
Yep, fully aware of that sale, which is my point about there not being a second sale closing to the North. They won't be able to build a second building there near Zanzibar, without further assembly, and maybe not even then. Also, iirc that land was part of the ZBLA deal as parkland dedication. No reason to suggest that isn't still the plan.
 
cd concept said:
I have a feeling this new developer will want to add on a lighting rod on top of the tower. To legitimately pass the 300m super-tall status mark.
Click to expand...
Lightning rods are not included in the height of a building.

Bulloch said:
one thing for sure there won’t be a little park at 357a & 357 1/2 Yonge previously owned by cresford which we heard of previously instead of park concord might have different plans for south of YSL.
Click to expand...
Urban-Affair said:
iirc that land was part of the ZBLA deal as parkland dedication. No reason to suggest that isn't still the plan.
Click to expand...
@Urban-Affair is correct: that site will still have to be given to the City as a parkland dedication.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Lightning rods are not included in the height of a building.



@Urban-Affair is correct: that site will still have to be given to the City as a parkland dedication.
Click to expand...
Right from start City wanted Cash not a small parkette City was against a small parkette middle of commercial main strip fronts and I think still City will take Cash instead a small parkette
 
Bulloch said:
Right from start City wanted Cash not a small parkette City was against a small parkette middle of commercial main strip fronts and I think still City will take Cash instead a small parkette
Click to expand...

Where are you hearing that?

The City's policy at the moment, downtown is not to accept cash-in-lieu.

They want physical land. Typically this is done off-site, as at most proposed sites, 10% or even 20% of the land area wouldn't be very functional.

In this case, the site was justified on the basis that the City intends to 'animate' O'Keefe lane and wanted a mid-block access between Gould and Gerrard.

Personally, I was never sold on that idea............but I digress.

The City has been very reluctant to accept cash on downtown sites.

They've been taking a bruising for sitting on parkland acquisition funds while the price of real estate has soared.
 
At present City will preferred cash than a little just over 20 feet wide Parkette imagine another homeless sleeping tents park middle of famous Yonge street strip.
 
Bulloch said:
At present City will preferred cash than a little just over 20 feet wide Parkette imagine another homeless sleeping tents park middle of famous Yonge street strip.
Click to expand...
The deal is done, the building comes with the parkette. @Northern Light is right, the City wants land downtown, not cash-in-lieu. The only way this would change is if Concord gives them more land somewhere close by.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The deal is done, the building comes with the parkette. @Northern Light is right, the City wants land downtown, not cash-in-lieu. The only way this would change is if Concord gives them more land somewhere close by.

42
Click to expand...
Parkette was not part of MPAC hearing approval. Parkette was announced later after negotiating. City wanted over 7 millions dollars but later agreed to small parkette
 
Ciarlandini said:
Crazy that Yonge and Gerrard is going to end up being our tallest intersection. Who would have guessed? Include the Chelsea which is in the works and you've got an entire skyline at one intersection.
Click to expand...


If these buildings end up getting built.
 
Deadpool X said:
Why would the developer do so? It is going to make them extra money? Do buyers care if their building is supertall?
Click to expand...
I'm just making an overall statement on this structure almost becoming a supertall tower of just 1m or so. It was supposed to be a slimmer supertall tower anyway. But the city widen and lowered the tower for some reason. Creating more shadow in the area which doesn't make sense to me.
 
cd concept said:
I'm just making an overall statement on this structure almost becoming a supertall tower of just 1m or so. It was supposed to be a slimmer supertall tower anyway. But the city widen and lowered the tower for some reason. Creating more shadow in the area which doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...
Yeah the 1 meter under supertall status seems to be more of a statement from City Planning to the developer, i cant see
how a measly 1 meter affects or makes any difference on a building that has already been planned and approved @ 299 meters tall
by the way there is one more out there that's been approved @ 299 meters... Sugar Wharf Tower B, which i expect the final height to be a bit different
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yeah the 1 meter under supertall status seems to be more of a statement from City Planning to the developer, i cant see
how a measly 1 meter affects or makes any difference on a building that has already been planned and approved @ 299 meters tall

Click to expand...

1M of height, at 4pm, on that site, in Toronto, on this day is about 5M extra shadow in the east.

As per:

Online calculator: Shadow length

Gives a vertical object shadow length for given coordinates and time. Also calculates shadow growth during whole day.
planetcalc.com planetcalc.com
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top