Ramako:

The applicant has consistently suggested that due to the fact the Heintzman site comprises a heritage property and has access limitations it is unlikely that it would be redeveloped in the future. Staff do not agree with this position given the many sites (including the subject site) that have been proposed and/or approved for redevelopment and
which contain heritage resource(s). In many cases development of a site containing heritage resources provides an opportunity to conserve the heritage resource(s) that might not otherwise be achievable. If redevelopment is done in a way that is compatible with the heritage Staff report for action – Final Report – 197, 197R, 199 and 201 Yonge Street 19
resource(s), then it is important that this opportunity remain available.
Click to expand...

The fairness question again.

- The proposal does not provide appropriate separation from the adjacent site to the south as
set forth in the city wide Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Building Proposals and the
more recent Downtown Vision Guidelines. The approval of this proposal could affect the
future development potential of the adjacent landowner, serve as an inappropriate precedent
for other developments and/or could compromise quality of life for future residents; and
- The proposal could set a negative precedent which encourages a "first-to-the-post" approach
in dealing with adjacency issues.
Click to expand...

Believing that this development should be approved doesn't negate the reality of these planning issues. Like I have said, it should be a political decision, not a planning one.

AoD
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that they are concerned about adjacency to the Heintzman building but the owner of the Heintzman building is not (they say it supports the application). While I can understand concerns about a rush to be first to build, surely if the owner of the affected property does not object than there will be restrictions on what that owner or any subsequent owner can do if a building with south facing balconies goes up close to the property line.

And of course the concern about lack of parking. On a site where parking has to be above ground, is on the subway line, in the middle of the City, with a very large parking garage across the street.
 
I see this sentence on p.13....

"While the proposal addresses the long term objective for revitalization, and knowing that
compromises typically must be made, there remains aspects of the proposal that require
modification."

Is the planning department blocking this from being built or simply saying we want more modifications? I don't know about the rest of you, but as much as this proposal excites me (and i want it built), the old building on the south end of the site always concerned me - I worry that it will sit and rot once this is built. Did the developers try and incorporate it into earlier designs?

Lark
 
I must say, I find it strangely ironic that the city is afraid of precedents in the area when their own height limits are based on precedents. Stranger yet is their refusal to acknowledge this area as part of downtown, preferring terms like "outside of the financial district." I'm actually shocked that anyone questions the OMB when the city's planning decisions are often so laughably arbitrary that they cannot be upheld in a neutral hearing. Had their past decisions not been so arbitrary, I may be in a position of opposition re the OMB. It is becoming obvious that losing their jurisdiction over the city would leave planning at the whims of overzealous councillors who attempt to enforce their own ideals (and irrational fear of heights) on everyone.
 
Last edited:
Before we get three more pages of "the city councillors are so afraid of heights that they should be all hung" posts (and "they hated the density therefore they thought the building was too tall") , the report is quite clear that they have no issue with the height or the shadowing of the tower. The issue is with density and the size and placement of various elements of the structure and floorplate.
 
Height is a function of density - you can't have one without the other. If it is truly an issue of the floorplate and site plan then I am surprised that Mod Developments did not oblige if it meant securing approval.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I wouldn't worry too much about it - councillors do vote against the recommendation of the planning staff from time to time. That said, the merit of the proposal isn't the issue - it is the precedent that is. On what planning basis will the city deny proposals of a similar nature, when no complementary benefits are offered? Surely this is something one should think about regardless of where one stand with respect to this particular proposal?

AoD
Click to expand...

Alvin, just want to come back to this. Are you forgetting about the transfer of land to Massey Hall, or am I not getting your point?

42
 
fedplanner said:
Height is a function of density - you can't have one without the other. If it is truly an issue of the floorplate and site plan then I am surprised that Mod Developments did not oblige if it meant securing approval.
Click to expand...

I think the point here is that if the Heintzman Building were part of this parcel, and it were to remain unredeveloped, then the Planning Department would be fine with the density (or closer to fine, anyway), and would be fine with the separation between the Massey Tower and the next project to the south. They would also then be fine with the height and the shadowing because those aren't the greatest issue here, especially not the shadowing.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I think the point here is that if the Heintzman Building were part of this parcel, and it were to remain unredeveloped, then the Planning Department would be fine with the density (or closer to fine, anyway), and would be fine with the separation between the Massey Tower and the next project to the south. They would also then be fine with the height and the shadowing because those aren't the greatest issue here, especially not the shadowing.

42
Click to expand...

I wonder if there's a chance that Switzer buys the Heintzman Building and takes advantage of the larger parcel to increase the height and density of the tower. Isn't that what happened with the proposal on restaurant row?
 
i42:

Alvin, just want to come back to this. Are you forgetting about the transfer of land to Massey Hall, or am I not getting your point?
Click to expand...

I don't think I made my point clear - what I am saying is that in this instance, the benefits offered is clear (preservation of the heritage structure, donation of land to MH, architectural qualities of the proposal). However, I am concerned that the proposal sets a precedent such that future proposals not offering similar levels of benefits (if at all) can be deemed acceptable on the exception made in planning grounds alone. There is a fairness argument that can be made here (like that in the TIFF case) - not every project is in the position to offer benefits to these desirable 3rd parties - is it fair to deny them of additional development rights? Does these third parties become some kind of kingmakers in planning - and who ultimately assigned a value for their organization to their benefit? These are questions that one should ask even if there aren't any good answer.

Ramako:

He could, but it won't be cheap - assuming that the current owner is even willing to sell, and that's not guaranteed at all. What I am suggesting is that the tower should be approved with the explicit political understanding that there might be repercussions down the road that might be costly to avoid (if at all possible). Planners are supposed to be there to give "neutral" advice (as humanly possible as it is) -ultimately approval or denial is a political responsibility.

AoD
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
I think the point here is that if the Heintzman Building were part of this parcel, and it were to remain unredeveloped, then the Planning Department would be fine with the density (or closer to fine, anyway), and would be fine with the separation between the Massey Tower and the next project to the south. They would also then be fine with the height and the shadowing because those aren't the greatest issue here, especially not the shadowing.

42
Click to expand...

Would it be fair to say that the dealbreaker for Massey Tower is the proximity it would have to a future tower should one rise on the Heintzman Building site?

Interesting.

Reducing the sizes of the floorplates so the tower is "slimmer" may be warranted. They have already sold most of the condos, so who knows how feasible of an option that may be.

I hate making this comparison but its an issue you would expect to see in Manhattan. Any examples from New York?
 
alklay said:
Before we get three more pages of "the city councillors are so afraid of heights that they should be all hung" posts (and "they hated the density therefore they thought the building was too tall") , the report is quite clear that they have no issue with the height or the shadowing of the tower. The issue is with density and the size and placement of various elements of the structure and floorplate.
Click to expand...

The Kristyn Wong-Tam haters haven't even come out yet and blamed her for this.
 
Assuming its for sale. The landowner may also have their own plans for a substantially large tower that would be immensely more profitable than selling to Mod Developments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top