whatever
Senior Member
I'm having trouble keeping track. Is that to say they're no longer seeking to go from 45 -> 50s, and are now trying for 48s total instead?
Chris_Hull
Active Member
Consider Five with such a large lot, it is fair to extend 5 floors isn't it? Think Karma, Casa2, and Massey's are all above 60s.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Karma was approved at 46 floors and a further settlement at the OMB resulted in an approval for 50 floors. Neither Casa II (57s proposed) nor Massey (60s proposed) have obtained planning approvals. Site specific contexts, neighbouring property conditions, tower set-backs and proposed density (FSI) also differ in each case.
thecharioteer
Senior Member
The Planning Department did not support an additional 5 floors, which is why the applicant asked for a deferral at the original hearing.
Peepers
Banned
When I read stories like this I wish Ford would take an axe to the planning department. What difference would 5 more floors make at this location (or 50 more floors for that matter?).
This is a developer that is actually doing good things to preserve heritage buildings and is taking steps to clean up its stretch of the eye-sore that is Yonge street. The city should be rewarding developers like this instead of denying what is a reasonable request.
Chris_Hull
Active Member
Five may seek 5 additonal level at OMB, considerring all the new towers along Yonge st. exceed 60s nowadays. Supertalls along Yonge st. seems a trend in the future and city may take this fact into consideration.
ThomasJ
Active Member
dude - not "all of the new towers along Yonge" exceed 60s. aura is the only one. as corrected by mike in to, neither casa nor massey have been approved - and even if they were, they wouldn't be above 60. same for 501 and 460 - not approved and not over 60.
ThomasJ
Active Member
When I read stories like this I wish Ford would take an axe to the planning department. What difference would 5 more floors make at this location (or 50 more floors for that matter?).
This is a developer that is actually doing good things to preserve heritage buildings and is taking steps to clean up its stretch of the eye-sore that is Yonge street. The city should be rewarding developers like this instead of denying what is a reasonable request.
how is it a "reasonable request"? they already got 45 storeys and nearly 15x coverage. i'm not anti-development (in fact i'm the opposite) but don't you think the developer has been rewarded enough here already? just saying.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Well you essentially have your wish, the planning department is currently short staff by a few dozen positions due to cuts and hiring freezes in both the ford and miller eras. Lack of adequate staffing resources during one of the largest periods of economic expansion and population growth the city has experienced during the recent building boom contributes significantly to process delays, many projects going to the OMB due to lack of decisions made within time periods set out within the planning act and generally a culture of 'reactionary' planning that responds to applications rather then forward thinking planning to shape the future of our city in a coherent vision....the obsession over height is really just a minor element in the bigger picture of development / planning / urban design / architecture...
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Well said. There's been enough planning "mishaps" with good Planners, imagine no City Planners? It's simply unthinkable - undo-able.
Chris_Hull
Active Member
True say, more supertalls should be approved by the city in the downtown core. Think about Toronto, traditionally people don't like to live in the east areas of Yonge st. (like Church and Jarvis etc) due to many reasons. As population in Toronto will continue to increase in the future, our city should prepare enough place for people to work and live in downtown core areas. Also Toronto's lifesyle will converge to NYC style in the future, so increasing density of downtown core is a reasonable trend. However, the city should invest a lot more in our public transit as well.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Supertalls are too expensive to build and there aren't many locations left to build one, good planning doesn't happen with a 100 storey building full of tiny apartments.
Where in the world do you get the ridiculous idea that people don't want to live east of Yonge? Are you kidding?! Between Yonge & the parklands west of the Don River there are tons of great neighbourhoods in which to live. Over the next few decades (presuming Toronto doesn't become the next Detroit or Buffalo) new Toronto will be built east of Yonge over at the Portlands/Lower Don etc. (that's also east of Yonge).
Take a walk one day & discover what your missing.
As for Five, I say give them another five floors and milk them for section 37 funds.
Where in the world do you get the ridiculous idea that people don't want to live east of Yonge? Are you kidding?! Between Yonge & the parklands west of the Don River there are tons of great neighbourhoods in which to live. Over the next few decades (presuming Toronto doesn't become the next Detroit or Buffalo) new Toronto will be built east of Yonge over at the Portlands/Lower Don etc. (that's also east of Yonge).
Take a walk one day & discover what your missing.
As for Five, I say give them another five floors and milk them for section 37 funds.
khris
Senior Member
East of Yonge is definitely not as nice as west. I can say that now after living on Church street for almost a year.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
West downtown is probably nicer than east downtown, but the statement was no one wants to live east of Yonge. There are plus's and minuses on both sides downtown east and west of Yonge. Downtown east gets a bad rap because of St. Jamestown, lower Sherbourne and Regent Park, and St. Jamestown isn't that bad at all save for a few really rundown and crime ridden buildings. Many buildings in St. Jamestown are affordable, have good sized apartments and close to two subway stations.
marsh
Active Member
Its high enough at this location. The bylaw was significantly amended to allow for the increased height and denisty after signficant community consultations and planning department input and local councilor support. I think its an abuse of process for developers to then come after the fact to ask for more floors purely because of "market demand" by making a request for a minor variance at the committee of adjustment - thats not what the purpose of minor variance requests were for. Also, the whole process is a scam on the people who buy the condo - what if you bought what you thought was the penthouse floor (and the paid the premium) only to find out you know have 5 floors above you? If it is at the OMB< they will probably will win as the OMB is notorious for being pro development.