Northern Light
Superstar
TO Core is the process that led to the Downtown Plan.
The wording from the latter is here:
The applicable map is here:
The plan is in force (signed off by the Minister)
Last edited:
- Thread starter DonValleyRainbow
- Start date
TO Core is the process that led to the Downtown Plan.
The wording from the latter is here:
The applicable map is here:
The plan is in force (signed off by the Minister)
RonThom
Active Member
Oh I see, so it's not "no net new shadow" as you said before.
You also wrote the following in reference to the park on Simcoe:
And I must admit, this really puzzles me. So your preference would be to have the building come right to the property line? Or... ?
There is a major redesign project coming for where Simcoe Street goes under the Gardiner (more info: https://www.waterfrontreconnect.com/)
And this development, immediately south of the redesign location, proposes to add a 500 square metre park by a great designer (dtah), plus wider sidewalks, plus additional covered open space and retail facing the park, plus 13 tree plantings where there are none, plus a bike share station, and your position is this is a "completely useless waste of space"?
Urban evolution and improvement happens block by block, project by project, and a greater whole will emerge as a result. I think this absolutely the case for this proposed public park on the Simcoe Frontage.
Edit to add additional images and this comment: Obviously this is not going to be a destination park. It doesn't do everything a park can do. But that's not the point. This is a stepping stone, a place to rest before or after going under the Gardiner. A place to meet a friend or grab a coffee or bite to eat. A little moment of visual and spatial relief, and a bit of green, on the long walk for tourists from the waterfront to Ripley's or for visitors from the MTCC to the waterfront. It's part of an archipelago of public spaces that should be knitted into every district of the city. Whereas today, need I remind you, it is an eight storey parking garage with nothing at all but a crowded sidewalk.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Parks has clearly interpreted the policy here as no net new shadow period. That's what the policy allows for; you may choose to interpret the words differently, but Parks and Planning make those calls and they have made them.
A simple widening of Simcoe's sidewalk and a nice streetscape would suffice.
I do know that.
I've explained my position at length. I'm really the accepted expert on park design and trees in this forum; evidently you disagree with my take, you're welcome to your assessment, I've given mine.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I won't ask what you find funny; as you've been consistently disrespectful; I will no longer consider your questions on this forum.
RonThom
Active Member
Well you're obviously curious or you wouldn't have posted again, so I'll share.
This is wrong
This is funny
And I think it is inappropriate to be so convinced of your own expertise that someone disagreeing with you or is automatically considered "disrespectful".
Northern Light
Superstar
Aside from the fact I've worked with (not for) Parks for a number of years; and have an expertise in trees, landscapes, their design, installation and maintenance.
I started UT's Problematic Park Design thread; and there, you can see what opinions others have formed of my expertise.
Further, I have answered questions both publicly and privately for more than two dozen forumers on these subjects.
I have a healthy ego to be sure; but on this subject there is no disputing my expertise.
****
Also, it's not your disagreement that's disrespectful; it's that you don't accept my statements of fact, even when they are indisputably true and I provide citations.
It's fine if you want a park at this site; or if you would be fine w/shadows on Roundhouse Park. That's your take, and you're welcome to it.
I'm not necessarily opposed to the latter in some small way; it's just policy not to allow it.
****
Now, we're done.
Last edited:
RonThom
Active Member
This is a specific accusation and I will ask you to substantiate or retract it.
Northern Light
Superstar
Your first line in this post:
Q Tower | 197.4m | 59s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects
Is this policy concept in force? I thought the Downtown Plan applied to this area. TO Core is the process that led to the Downtown Plan. The wording from the latter is here: The applicable map is here: The plan is in force (signed off by the Minister)
This statement:
This is wrong
In this post:
Q Tower | 197.4m | 59s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects
Is this policy concept in force? I thought the Downtown Plan applied to this area. TO Core is the process that led to the Downtown Plan. The wording from the latter is here: The applicable map is here: The plan is in force (signed off by the Minister)
If you were referencing parks decision in the above, you did not say that, only that what I said was wrong. Its not.
Moreover, there is another poster in the thread and news reports I've linked to which quote Mr. Lintern as Chief Planner and which clearly state that is how the policy is proposed.
That's also the same take Parks has on proposals adding any incremental shadow to Jesse Ketchum and Allan Gardens.
*****
Now let's move on, shall we.
At this point I am not planning on removing the posts above, even as they have become too personal. Despite the difference of opinion, it appears that each member is arguing in good faith… but I believe the appeal to reputation is misguided; if members wish to use their real name as their avatar, present their credentials, state where their income comes from, fine… but we do not tend to do that. While one cannot pretend that members don't build a legacy through posting over time, no member should expect to be the only one practiced enough in Toronto's development game that they might be the sole voice on the forum with expertise in any particular area. So, please tone down the claims of ultimate authority over certain areas of discussion, and let the threads remain just that; a discussion, not a territorial dispute.
42
42
macro
Active Member
Thank you
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
You can pretty much guarantee everything I post here is not said with any degree of authority, Mr. 42. It's mostly observations, speculations and the occasional wild guesses of which much is likely factually incorrect. /sigh
With that said though...
-----
With that said though...
-----
Well for one, I'd put all that bronze finishings all back...as I am pretty sure Planning didn't tell 'em to remove them in the first place. >.<
artyboy123
Senior Member
New renderings are updated in the database! Major detail changes are also edited in the database!
The overall storey count decreased from 71 & 41 storeys to 59 storeys (dropped from 2 towers to 1 tower). The overall building height decreased from 237.50m & 144.0m to 197.40m. The total unit count also decreased from 1372 & 110 units to 1002 units. Additional parking spaces are proposed from 0 parking spaces to 340 parking spaces. Finally, the overall FSI decreased from 19.10 to 12.00.
The overall storey count decreased from 71 & 41 storeys to 59 storeys (dropped from 2 towers to 1 tower). The overall building height decreased from 237.50m & 144.0m to 197.40m. The total unit count also decreased from 1372 & 110 units to 1002 units. Additional parking spaces are proposed from 0 parking spaces to 340 parking spaces. Finally, the overall FSI decreased from 19.10 to 12.00.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
So in other words, they fully cheaped out with this... /sigh
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Some new images from tonight's public meeting...
Mercenary
Active Member
Well atleast it looks better than what is currently there.