Another thing lost in all of this, is that for the most part kids don't care about the weather unless its raining and even then they still make the best of it. This is a NIMBY issue, created by adults who don't like change.

Very well said. That is so true that I actually heard a chorus of angels in the distance while I was reading it.

My absolute favourite part about the entire thing is that in primary schools these days sunlight has been demonized to the point that it is now treated like carcinogenic kryptonite. A single ray touching tender young skin will result in mounds of melanomic growth spreading across the entire surface of the body in just a few hours. People just want something to get mad about.
 
Vancouver also has the most unaffordable housing in Canada. Granted Four Seasons is a luxury product, but for other projects do we really want to follow the Vancouver model where homes/condos downtown are nearly twice as expensive in Toronto. Sure the city could gain more in taxes, but the average person either wouldn't be able to afford to live here or their mortgages would be ridiculous. Should Toronto not alos have a goal to maintain an affordable stock of housing for its citizens?

I agree, pricing should be a consideration. But are the higher costs really associated with greater development fees? Im sure that's a factor, but I think there are other reasons as to why real estate costs in general are so much higher there.


In the case of this super-luxury project I'm sure they can afford more contributions. But in the case of an average condo aimed at first time home buyers or the middle class all those taxes are passed onto the home buyers. That should be a consideration when setting taxes and fees etc. Also, when investing $500 million to build a 46 and 30 storey tower, why should the developer not be entitled to make a profit? Afterall there is considerable risk in the development industry. Many many developers went belly up in the early to mid 1990s.

The developer is certainly entitled to make a profit. But I think they should have a responsibility to contribute to both the community they build and the built form of the city, in a positive way. If it was just up to them, the vast majority of developers would go the cheapest route possible to maximize their profit.

I do agree fees should be based on the project and location...that would probably help in maximizing what we get from developers while minimizing any increase in prices.
 
SD,

Certainly there are other factors, but taxes, fees and charges can acount for upwards 20% to 25% of the cost of a project. Usually land and the hard construction costs are most expensive.

But I think they should have a responsibility to contribute to both the community they build and the built form of the city, in a positive way. If it was just up to them, the vast majority of developers would go the cheapest route possible to maximize their profit.

For this project in particular I'm optimisitc that the Four Seasons without a doubt will contribute positively "to both the community they build and the built form of the city". We haven't seen renderings of the bull project yet, but from the various documents that have been made available this is definitely a very positive development.

Also from the March 8, 2006 Four Season Planning Report there are numerous other financial contributions to the city and community: (I'm only going to list some as my fingers will get tired)

"a contribution of $4,000,000 prior to the issuance of an above grade building permit for any developemnt, this section 37 contribution: i) Toronto Reference Library $1.5 million; and ii) Local streetscape improvements, new publicaly accessible landscaping in the area and facade restoration to the Fire Hall Station $2.5 million"

"provide a public art contribution in accordance with the City of Toronto's Public Art program for a value of not less than one percent of the gross construction cost..."

"provide, prior to first occupancy of the development, an at-fgrade pedestrian easement in favour of the City to permist access to the 1,300 square metre Publically accessible Landscaped Open Space......"

"provide and maintain within the site a publically accessible walkway connecting Yorkville Ave and Scollard Street..."

"provide exterior building materials and andscaping materials satisfactory to the Chier Planner..."

"provide irrigation systems for all new trees..."

I can't find the development charges for the project, but they likley also run into the millions of dollars, plus all the various permits and planning fees for the city may also run into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars.

The City will benifit significantly both economically and also in terms of built form from the project (although there may be a little less sun for some kids in the early morning)
 
Man am I sick of reading about height fearing Nimbys in Toronto. They should move to freeking Oshawa if they like short stubby buildings. Nothing there can be higher than City Hall. Good luck to them.
 
Lots of patience needed to solve Yorkville dispute
JOHN BENTLEY MAYS

Of the residential skyscraper schemes recently given the green light by Toronto's planning officials, none faces a more bruising political struggle than the Four Seasons hotel and condominium complex in Yorkville.

"We are appalled by the height and density, and the rather mediocre design," area resident Mary-Helen Spence said on behalf of one important residents' association girding itself for battle. A $2-million offer made by the builders (Menkes Development and Toronto-based Four Seasons Hotel Inc.) to improve a nearby schoolyard that would be touched by the towers' shadow has been declared unacceptable. "It's simply buying the sunshine from generations of children," Ms. Spence said.

The cause of this fuss in midtown's historic Yorkville district is indeed the largest development ever to come to the neighbourhood. If built as approved, the project will consist of two towers, 46 and 30 storeys tall, on Bay Street between Yorkville Avenue and Scollard Street. It will cast long shadows in a part of town not accustomed to them. But if it is not the most impressive architectural idea to come from the designers of the project -- Peter Clewes and Rudy Wallman of architectsAlliance -- the development will almost certainly not be the aesthetic calamity predicted by some residents.

The Four Seasons is nothing more dangerous than a luxurious reworking of Toronto-based Alliance's usual austere modernism.

Instead of being a tight, trim facing, for instance, the skin of the taller building will cascade down in shimmering, syncopated patterns from a high decorative crown. The transparent podium of the 46-storey tower promises to glow like a Japanese lantern at night, softly brightening what is now an indifferent streetscape. Though the towers are tall, the probable effect on the city will almost certainly be one of lightness, brightness, a sense of urbane lift.

But the best part of the design -- something that is much disliked by residents, by the way -- is what's planned for the street level. Though the podium is hard and aloof on its Bay Street side, on Yorkville, the street-wall gives way to a pleasantly intimate harbour framed by the towers. Cars will enter and exit this principal reception area of the hotel. The slow churn of traffic will likely create a lively sense of to and fro, though the hum will be muted by the streetside garden and other landscape features designed by Montreal architect Claude Cormier.

The Four Seasons will complete the renewal of Yorkville between Bay and Yonge streets -- a process begun by architectsAlliance's 18 Yorkville residential complex, and enriched by Mr. Cormier's sophisticated plan for the plantings.

The whimsical Fire Hall No. 10 (1876) -- one of two architectural senior citizens on the block, the other being the Yorkville Public Library (1906-1907) -- will receive a fix-up, courtesy of the Four Seasons developers.

But before a shovel goes into the ground, the objections of residents deserve another hearing, and as many hearings as it takes until an amicable resolution is achieved. I don't think such an outcome is impossible, though reaching it will surely require large quantities of patience on both sides of the table.

Were I setting the agenda, for example, I would urge the residents to be more realistic on the matter of shadows. The Four Seasons will not plunge the neighbourhood into unrelenting darkness. Long fingers of bright shade will surely sweep over Yorkville each day -- but such conditions of alternating sunshine and shade are common in all grown-up cities, and are not fearful.

As for the architects and developers, I would urge sensitivity toward the people whose little pocket of Victorian housing is being changed forever by the forces of metropolitan culture. The Four Seasons certainly has the kind of heft, height and high style that can transform a neighbourhood -- or, in the case of Yorkville, firmly complete a historical development begun years ago.

It has been a long time, after all, since the old village changed from a working-class residential suburb into the middle-brow tourist district it is today, then became menaced by the outward growth of downtown Toronto.

If the Four Seasons towers are finally put up in Yorkville, they will be among the taller buildings near the intersection of Bloor and Yonge, but hardly out of line with other high-rises soon to be constructed in the area.

Though the march of the skyscrapers into Yorkville is probably inevitable, the developers of the Four Seasons should give fresh thought to the modernizing transformation they are visiting upon the old and picturesque village.
 
it is refreshing to read an article falling on both sides of the argument; but having said that, it really makes me so angry to think of people arguing such a development in that area because of shadows. they do realize they live downtown, don't they? it's really so crazy.
 
There's so much hypocrisy involved when cravenly cynical adults claim their concern is about "the kids" rather than their own interests. The hypocrisy is only surpassed by the statement that "no value can be placed on sunshine". It seems to me the school did exactly that when they accepted the $2 million offer. I think what the lady quoted meant was 'I place no value on offers to anyone other than myself - personally I would accept $25,000 if payable to me rather than the school. In fact for $25G you could build a concrete cacophonous over the swing sets and sandboxes.'
 
Ah yes, the deadly Toronto shadow strikes again.

Once cast, it shall deny sunlight to the dear little sweethearts and to the wilting flowers of the mean city.

Keep them all equal with hatchet, ax and saw.
 
Pardon my ignorance, but shouldn't kids be in school learning at that time of the day instead of outside playing?
 
It requires a certain mindset to work within the urban approval process. You must derive satisfaction in one of two ways:

a) thrive from the challenge of reconciling differences and ovecoming obstacles. The greater the challenge, the greater the reward. Also, a fundamental respect for opposing views, even if misguided, is required. I'm talking about respect for democracy.

b) feeding on the satisfaction of steam-rolling, obliterating moronic, self-serving, reflexive opposition. The greater the objection - the bigger and more overpowering the project should be in response. The response to idiocy must be provocative insensitivity.

I am inclined towards the latter, but its not healthy, expecially when you lose.

So hats off to the developers, urban designers who respond reasonably to shrill claims such as "you can't put a price on sunshine, especially when the design is sooo mediocre..."
 
Interesting article by John Barber on the approval process of 4 Seasons vs. affordable housing, from the Globe:

The hotel prince and the Sister Act

JOHN BARBER

Committee Room No. 1 was all aflutter when Isadore Sharp himself descended from the corporate heavens to mingle with the crowd of concerned, sometimes confused and often crazy citizens usually found in that august chamber, where they fretfully petition the civic sachems on matters both great and small.

Courtly, urbane and ever so slightly condescending, encased in a virtual cocoon of finely tailored functionaries, the chairman of Four Seasons Hotels honoured all by unveiling in person his crowning glory as a world-beating Toronto boy: the glittering towers of the newest Four Seasons Hotel and luxury housing development, to adorn a currently shabby site on Bay Street north of Yorkville Avenue.

This prince even submitted to questions from Councillor Michael Walker, who needled him about the new project's grand disregard for the height and density limits that apply to its site, and generally sullied the whole affair with impertinent suggestions of profiteering.

But neither his nor any other, more seemly carping stalled the five-star progress of the new Four Seasons that day. The height limits were shattered and the zoning concerns crumbled as the proposal swept to approval. Not one storey disappeared.

On the same day and at the same time, way across town in the Politburo-like strangeness of the Scarborough Civic Centre's old council chambers, Sister Margaret Myatt confronted an entirely unfriendly mood among a different group of civic dignitaries gathered there for an identical purpose.

But it was nothing new to her. As familiar in such surroundings as Mr. Sharp is distinctive, the placid but determined General Superior of the Sisters of St. Joseph has spent the past six years battling hostile local politicians and their constituents in order to gain approval for the exact opposite of the new Four Seasons: an affordable housing project, currently comprising a few dozen semi-detached houses, to be built on surplus city-owned land just south of Lawrence Avenue East in West Hill -- a two-storey development that wouldn't break any rules at all.

And every time she tries, she loses. Every advantage, including the support of Mayor David Miller and the services of the same Bay Street law firm retained by Mr. Sharp, goes for naught. Every victory vanishes in an ever-renewing flood of meetings, studies, consultations and, inevitably, concessions.

The record of Sister Margaret's activities as chair of the Women's Religious Project, the group proposing the development, is punctuated by an almost comical descending scale of housing units proposed for the project, with every new meeting or report resulting in a smaller number provisionally permitted. What began as a city-backed proposal for 119 owner-occupied houses is now a proposal for 68, which the city itself is doing everything it can to frustrate and delay on behalf of hostile neighbours.

Although Scarborough community council knocked off another eight houses last week, Sister Margaret is determined to ask city council later this month for the "full" 68 -- a risky strategy considering her record so far.

When will the houses ever be built?

"Oh, who knows," she replied cheerfully. "I don't think anybody knows at this point. I've given up predicting, because every time we think something's going to happen, something else intervened."

She certainly never planned to spend six years at it. "I was naive enough to think that we could do something in a year and a half or two years," she said. "That was in my youth."

Nothing in this business distinguishes Sister Margaret and Mr. Sharp more tellingly than the official commentary on their coincidental projects. The planning report recommending approval of the Four Seasons project, virtually the first and the last word on this precedent-busting development, is 47 pages. The latest report outlining the difficulties of adding a few semis to residential land in Scarborough zoned for precisely that use, which crowns literally dozens of earlier reports on the same project, is 52 pages.

The report on the affordable housing makes much of neighbourhood concerns, which range from the potential loss of bat habitat (leading to increased risk of West Nile disease, according to residents) to the usual falderal about parking and traffic. Despite airing every silly complaint in detail, it recorded no local residents expressing opposition to affordable housing per se.

Their overall assault was above all that. "The association's position is that the site should remain in a natural state and that any development on this site is inappropriate, resulting in a negative impact on the community," the planners reported.

Among the many reasons city planners advanced in recommending quick approval of the Four Seasons project, on the other hand, is that it is so attractively unaffordable. As a condition of approval, they assured politicians and public alike, "the owner will be required to demonstrate that the hotel is intended to be operated in a manner consistent with luxury hotels awarded a "Five Star" rating in the Mobile [sic] Travel Guide."

Perhaps the most extraordinary feature of the entire negotiation was the applicant's last-minute offer of an amazing $2-million to a local public school, in return for the right to cast morning shadows on part of its playground. The Four Seasons project did come under attack from some important people making pointed arguments about the extraordinary concessions it obtained, but nobody paid attention.

This is the part of the story where the moral is supposed to be, but I can't find it. The obvious ones are too simple. Perhaps Sister Margaret and Mr. Sharp -- both of them highly admirable and capable people, with proven commitment to the community -- will be able to work one out if they happen to bump into each other at city hall later this month.

AoD
 
because Toronto is the Four Seasons' world headquarters we should let them build an iconic building as tall as they want... it will be an international symbol, get a lot of good press and clean up an ugly stretch of street. NIMBY's in our city have got to stop stressing about the height of a building all the time. Only 46 stories?... let them have their 55 back... heck give em' 65!
 
ratoronto:

because Toronto is the Four Seasons' world headquarters we should let them build an iconic building as tall as they want.

That sounded like an awful justification to me - not that I am against the building as proposed initially or as it is approved, but to argue for a planning carte blanche without consideration to anything else is rather irresponsible.

AoD
 
Dear Mr. Ed,

As you may have heard, the proposed Four Seasons Hotel and Private Residences Toronto received approval from Toronto City Council on April 27. At 46 stories, the tower will house the hotel, with private residences located atop the hotel boasting soaring views of the city. Residents will, of course, enjoy all the comforts and services expected in a Four Seasons environment.

With the municipal approval secured, we are now able to focus on completing the design of the hotel and private residences. We have made great strides in this phase, and are pleased to announce that we will be commencing with the construction of our presentation centre next month.

As an early registrant in the project, we assure you that you will be among the first to receive complete information regarding the sale of the residences, and we look forward to sharing the final plans with you as the construction of the presentation centre progresses.

We are thrilled to embark on this unique and compelling endeavor and look forward to having you with us as we create signature world-class residences befitting purchasers of such discerning and sophisticated taste.


Four Seasons Private Residences Toronto
inquiries@menkes.com
 
Did they really write "Dear Mr. Ed" or did you remove your last name?

You understand my point and my glee no doubt....

But that's a horse of a different colour (aka color).

Of course.
 

Back
Top