I'm constantly wondering why on the Forum it is considered normal to feign ignorance about the things that the City evaluates, like where shadows fall for example. They always have some reason for any reductions they ask for, and if they don't they lose at the OMB/LPAT if it comes to that. Let's not pretend we don't know that.I'm forever wondering why in this City it is considered a win by City Planning / City Councillors to get something reduced by 4 storeys. What was wrong with 48? The stubbier 44 will look slightly less sexy on the skyline than the 48.
Oh well, at least it wasn't redesigned into some typical Toronto podium-box so I guess we must take wins when they come. Let's please build this.
Its nice to see them break ground in Toronto and expect bigger and bolder things to come from Gang in future Toronto developmentsCan we replace the waterfront condos with these? Lol I know obviously not but even one of these in the actual core would be sweet. Can not wait to see this rise. If approved
Can we replace the waterfront condos with these? Lol I know obviously not but even one of these in the actual core would be sweet. Can not wait to see this rise. If approved
Not in the least disagreeing with your point here, but a question purely out of curiosity. My sister attends Yorkminster Park Church, across the street from this proposed structure and I have some other connections there also. As a result, I am in the area from time to time, hence my curiosity. What shading would be a matter of concern in this particular instance? There is Deer Park School to the east but it is already shadowed by the buildings at Yonge and St. Clair and will be in even greater shade if the project at 1535 Yonge is actually built. There is also a small but very pleasant green space, fully accessible to the public, on the northwest quadrant of the Yorkminster Park site but I suspect it will fall into shadow with either a 44 or 48 storey tower. (And does planning worry about privately owned space, as opposed to parks?). Just curious.I'm constantly wondering why on the Forum it is considered normal to feign ignorance about the things that the City evaluates, like where shadows fall for example. They always have some reason for any reductions they ask for, and if they don't they lose at the OMB/LPAT if it comes to that. Let's not pretend we don't know that.
We're always going to get mostly average buildings, ie. not great ones, as the market won't bear them all being premium products, but I hear you re: the Waterfront, and it mostly just makes me think Daniels Waterfront and Concord's Lakefront and Lakeshore towers at West Block. Arrrrrrgh.I was thinking the same thing.
Imagine a group of these instead of Pinnacle.
Hopefully projects like this can raise the bar for everyone.
In this case, my take on the explanation in the Planning Rationale Addendum is that the City was leaning on them here not to go as high as it will create too great an increase in height here that they'd then have a precedent that other developers would being asking to match in the area. To the east across Yonge there's that large Wittington site that is asking for 59 storeys and 197 metres, and I think the City wants this one down so that 1535 Yonge can be brought down a bit too - I wonder if it shadows David Balfour Park? (Haven't checked). Anyway, this is all my hunch, the City has told them they'll play ball at the reduced height and Slate won't have to wait extra years for an LPAT hearing to get approval therefore, so voila, a resubmission to grease the wheels.
They are fairly new to development, but I would say that they are closer to Oxford than Concord.They literally just approved a shortened version so, that's kinda moot.
Quite excited for our first Studio Gang. What's Slate's track record? Where do they sit on a Concord - Lanterra - Oxford scale?