Shorter and definitely one heck of a slab now- but interesting seeing that more of the existing streetscape remains.

Not sure if that was a good trade off, or if this is even good urban form.

Edit: A rough overlay of the original vs new design.

Rough Overlay.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Rough Overlay.jpg
    Rough Overlay.jpg
    148.3 KB · Views: 1,170
Last edited:
Design has significantly changed in the settlement offer (scroll to page 3). https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-117356.pdf
1. 75,871 square metres of residential space (a maximum 1,106 residential units
including a minimum of 1,511 square metres and a maximum 2,658 square metres of
on-site affordable rental housing).
2. 18,629 square metres of retail/office/institutional space including between 6,682
square metres - 8,847 square metres of institutional space, 375 square metres
community and/or cultural space and 485 square metres day care (with an additional
278 square metres of outdoor day care space).
3. A maximum 85-storey tower (height of 299 meters to top of mechanical penthouse
with a 21-storey podium).
4. A maximum 94,500 square metres of gross floor area (By-law 569-2013).
5. A maximum Floor Space Index (FSI) of 25 (By-law 569-2013).
6. A maximum TAR of 24 percent.
7. An average tower floor plate of 983 square metres.
 
Shorter and definitely one heck of a slab now- but interesting seeing that more of the existing streetscape remains.

Not sure if that was a good trade off, or if this is even good urban form.

Edit: A rough overlay of the original vs new design.

View attachment 150709
Gee so sad, i would assume KPF has nothing to do with this now?
 
Last edited:
No longer interested in this project thanks for the fun conversations here and the once pain antime dream of a beauty being built here. Always more designs to come for future developments elsewhere but this is a big disappointment. And a pour substitute.cool. but not for replacing what was.
 
Ah, damn, that's really unfortunate that it got cut down like that. Hoping that the final design ends up being at least 300m tall. I'm sure it will still look great but it won't look as stellar now.

Hopefully some developer in the future will eventually be able to get a tower through at significantly higher than 300m at some point, but for now, it doesn't seem as likely.
 
No longer interested in this project thanks for the fun conversations here and the once pain antime dream of a beauty being built here. Always more designs to come for future developments elsewhere but this is a big disappointment. And a pour substitute.cool. but not for replacing what was.
No, this city planning obviously has no pride in design and architecture and more of what they think is right,
.. and whats up with 299 meters, does the city just tell most developers to keep it under 300 meters..lol
 
man that's so shitty, im already having such a bad day. im just gonna curl up in my bed and sleep.

and next time a developer should propose a 400m+ tower so if it gets chop chop we still have atleast 350m.
 
and next time a developer should propose a 400m+ tower so if it gets chop chop we still have atleast 350m.

Yeah, that isn't a bad idea actually, propose something ridiculous, over 400m tall, that will inevitably get cut down, but will still be reasonably tall and over 300m by the time everything has been planned out and chopped.
 
No, this city planning obviously has no pride in design and architecture and more of what they think is right,
.. and whats up with 299 meters, does the city just tell most developers to keep it under 300 meters..lol

Yet some projects like One Yonge seem to almost sail through planning while projects like these seem to get stalled- there must be more than this.

I might chalk it up to how hard the councillor makes it (Kristyn Wong-Tam) + developer economics (retaining unit count in a shorter tower + the economics of supertalls).
 
^^^This is being inserted into a dense, pre-existing, urban context. One Yonge isn't. It's almost a clean slate down there.
 

Back
Top