As an owner of a unit across the street from this where I live and work, on the 22nd floor, for 8 years, I have no concerns over loosing a portion of my view over the current parking lot. It's unrealistic to expect nothing in front of me forever. And if the city allows additional density to establish design improvements that enhance the area, parks, or a better ratio of amenity space or desirable access or court yard pedestrian spaces then I'm okay with it.

Even if it was built to the existing allowable densities we'd still not have views to the water from the 22nd floor. I'd loose some sun even if a 40 storey or a 90 storey is in front of me. But the higher it is the further reaching the darkening impact at street level will be. But, this is an urban city, and I'd hope the designers will be sensitive to this.

I often walk on Yonge between Queen and Front street and it is perpetually dark at street level. But at Front the sky opens up around the L Tower and in front of 18 Yonge and 16 Yonge the street level is bright from the sky all day, and bright with sun for half of the day. Space the building massing as best you can and step them in height as best you can.

I too am interested in seeing the evolving design.
 
Big Daddy said:
I would think there would be a far greater benefit to the city to ensure the property can be profitable - and the properties further east as well - so that the city can look forward to a better designed and built community. This by itself does not guarantee good design, but as 1-7 is proving, the opportunity for the developer to make a profit is keeping them at the negotiating table and we are seeing the design evolve into a more desirable development overall - even if it does require permitting additional height.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought, but not workable.

The problem is 1) that there is no one arbiter at the City who is granted the power to apply density bonuses based on what the developer paid for the land, 2) anyone who were in such a position could still only do so up to a point, as ultimately there would be some high purchase prices that just couldn't be compensated for while still being "good planning", and of course, 3) if there were a system in place to compensate a developer for overpaying for the land, the price of land would simply rise more steeply, anyway.

42
 
Big Daddy said:
You are obviously trying desperately hard to misinterpret what I said.

It should be obvious that, if there is little opportunity for profit in the purchase of the property, there will be few interested builders
and
whichever builder is successful in acquiring the property will look to cut costs in every conceivable way.
Is that clearer? is that desireble?

I would think there would be a far greater benefit to the city to ensure the property can be profitable - and the properties further east as well - so that the city can look forward to a better designed and built community. This by itself does not guarantee good design, but as 1-7 is proving, the opportunity for the developer to make a profit is keeping them at the negotiating table and we are seeing the design evolve into a more desirable development overall - even if it does require permitting additional height.
Click to expand...

I'm not misinterpreting your post. Your trying hard to rationalize something that makes little sense. Building great communities is about proper planning. Concessions to planning for developers to make more profit and, of course, satisfy your height fetish ( yeah right that could happen) goes against that.

The negotiation table exists in Toronto in part to planning that has relatively little substance. It's all up for interpretation which is why a 20 storey tower may be rejected one year and a 40 storey tower approved the next. As I alluded, this drawn out speculative process is not beneficial to anyone including us developers and yet you seem more than fine with it.

What exactly is 7 Yonge proving in ways of making Pinnacle a larger profit? Wouldn't the original proposal be more lucrative than the current version? Fewer towers now. Harder to amend to market conditions.
 
Last edited:
In face of the out-of-date-zoning quagmire that Council has placed the Planning Department in, the Department and Council have put in place the Tall Building Design Guidelines, the Mid-Rise ones, and are putting in place a Low-Rise set now too. The guidelines are beginning to bring more predictability to just what is allowed on any site, damn the current zoning. A couple of recent OMB rulings (Grid Condos, 412 Church) have shown that the OMB considers the guidelines to apply a consistent set of restrictions on each lot, mostly based on its size, frontage-to-depth ratio, and adjacent built form.

The guidelines are not the only factor coming into play determining how big, how tall, etc., any particular project is being approved at, (shadowing, servicing, etc. etc. still have a role to play), but without the political will to get zoning fixed, the guidelines are becoming today's last word.

42
 
maestro said:
I'm not misinterpreting your post. Your trying hard to rationalize something that makes little sense. Building great communities is about proper planning. Concessions to planning for developers to make more profit and, of course, satisfy your height fetish ( yeah right that could happen) goes against that.
Click to expand...

First, I don't have a "height fetish", I simply feel height could be used as a tool with which the city could help itself achieve some goals. It makes a great deal of sense, if the city's interests are better served by improving density to a development, and in such a case, I feel the trade-off is more than acceptable - And since zoning isn't a real "thing" in T.O. then whats to prevent it?

maestro said:
What exactly is 7 Yonge proving in ways of making Pinnacle a larger profit? Wouldn't the original proposal be more lucrative than the current version? Fewer towers now.
Click to expand...

I wasn't actually talking about 1-7 Yonge, I was referring to the LCBO lands just to the east.
The Province is selling the LCBO lands because they need money. If the city takes half away for a park and still more for a road allowance, I would presume the value of the property is reduced rather significantly. As such, the Province - who will of course want the highest bid for the property that's left - will obtain significantly less for the property. It would seem to make sense that the city could help to ensure that the property is better designed or built by potentially offering (negotiating?) greater density - or, as the case may be, not objecting to greater height when proposed. It seems like a win/win - especially if zoning is irrelevant.

As for the Pinnacle site, I'm quite sure that the project will be better designed and built if the project is granted greater density in exchange for improvements or changes the city may request. I used to work with a major retailer and developed properties all across Canada, I know these negotiations occur and that there are a variety of ways a city can get something approved if it's in the city's interest (Vaughan Hockey Arena). The developer may offer the city more (cash for infrastructure; schools; transit or certain design changes) if it is allowed to keep the density in it's latest proposal. I don't know, but I don't think Ivanhoe wanted a GO terminal in it's Bay Park office complex - but they were likely granted significant density improvements by altering their project to include it. It was obviously beneficial to the city to have a shiny new GO terminal next door to Union
station. Win/win.
 
They look good! The 65 s tower is definitely the least exciting, but still looks handsome.
The 95 s looks pretty iconic to me, and the base of the 80 s looks really organic, sort of an extended version of 1be podium.
 
Much depends on the materials. I think The One has a certain austere charm to it. Provided the renders we've seen are to be trusted, of course. This one? Who knows what its surfaces will look like at this point?
 
Lenser said:
Much depends on the materials. I think The One has a certain austere charm to it. Provided the renders we've seen are to be trusted, of course. This one? Who knows what its surfaces will look like at this point?
Click to expand...

It's H+P - barring horrendous cheapening, expecting it to be like 1BE, Five, etc is probably reasonable.

But then, it's Pinnacle, whose output consists of P+S dreck thus far.

AoD
 
A general question that arises from AoD's post: which is a better predictor of the eventual result, good, bad or indifferent, the developer or the architect?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top