I doubt that Pinnacle would characterize their revised submission as a loss of their "right" to build 55 more storeys, which is not a definitive unit of measurement in any case. What Pinnacle are the City are discussing is the total Gross Floor Area, and the heights of individual component buildings in metres. It's all about density and shadows and wind and the like. So, the numbers that are in play are a GFA of 594,112 square metres from the original application, and 487,455 square metres in the new one. That's a development 82% as large as the original proposal.

As they don't have a right to build anything close to what they are asking for yet, they are working toward what both parties can accept. Pinnacle will naturally want to maximize the potential of the site, while the City will be looking to approve something that fits into their various guidelines and area plans.

As the two parties are still talking we can take that as an indication that they would rather reach an agreement without going to the OMB… but you can bet that if at some point Pinnacle feels that the City is trying to impose something significantly less than what they could get from the OMB, they would end talks and simply go take their chance. Predicting OMB decisions is not an exact science though, so Pinnacle would want to be convinced of a win before taking that option.


42
 
^ Uh huh, that's pretty much what I said, they are negotiating an "appropriate density" for the site. "Appropriate" being the defining word as this can only be based on other developments in the core area.

This site is bordered by a lake, tall condos and Industrial ' undeveloped areas i.e. a perfect area for tall buildings that wont impact other residential developments and will help to generate the downtown density the transit needs as we go forward. You can't buy a house in Toronto anymore, condos are the subdivisions of the future and forcing them to reduce their density is akin to forcing people to the suburbs. We need the housing downtown, there are buyers waiting, let them build it. Like you said, the OMB will be their next move and I would hope they could avoid it - I'm sure Pinnacle doesn't want to offend the city planners either as they have more plans for the city - but if you can't make any progress, its the only option left. And given the location, I think the OMB would be pretty generous.
 
Wish our zoning had more teeth. It would streamline discussion with the focus more on design than the villainous planners curbing development which couldn't be further from the truth. That limiting density to a more acceptable level on this one particular property will only encourage further suburban growth is the perfect example. Always interesting to find out where the forumers that support unlimited density reside too. (to be clear, not directed at anyone in particular) Binding zoning controls would also benefit heritage preservation as air rights would become a lucrative commodity as height does tend to be less of a concern than density.

Not sure how the OMB would approach this. I'd guess Pinnacle Centre, Harbour Square, Pier 27 and, the East Bayfront would be the focus of any decision than the taller towers over by York Street. My bet is that Pinnacle isn't afraid of offending city planners as they are professionals afterall. It is more the uncertainty of the OMB's conclusion. Of course, The same applies to the other side of the coin.
 
Last edited:
Stopped by Toronto of the Future today. It seems that the massing for this project has changed. The southern half of the project is shorter and squatter and attached to the existing Star building. The Northern half is only 3 towers, and the tallest is now a disjointed boxy style rather than the rounded tower in the renders.

attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    344.4 KB · Views: 1,599
…and there's a walkway planned from Yonge Street diagonally through the site towards the new park which would be on the LCBO lands.

It's all still in flux. Apparently there will be a community update near the end of June.

42
 
interchange42 said:
…and there's a walkway planned from Yonge Street diagonally through the site towards the new park which would be on the LCBO lands.

It's all still in flux. Apparently there will be a community update near the end of June.

42
Click to expand...

Ah! That explains the gap on the south side of the LCBO lands. With Waterlink directly south, it'll avoid shadowing, which is ideal.
 
For the foot of Yonge Street, that is terribly disappointing.

What is causing the reduction, economics or city planning?
 
I think it might just be the angle in that photo. In real life it looked on par with First Canadian Place.
 
Last edited:
Are those models and heights even indicative of what will be built, or are they merely just placeholders, showing the potential of the site?
 
Praxus said:
Wish we had planners who didn't have a reflexive hate for height and a love for mediocrity.
Click to expand...

If you want to blame someone for mediocrity, blame developers who only want to farm this city for money at the expense of the public realm, as well as investors who don't give a flip about architecture.
 
Plus height has nothing to do with quality (hello Aura!) - it may under the right conditions enable it, but that's something to be judged on a case by case basis.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top