[Filip]

Yeah, the site is a fair bit larger than PWCs but probably not large enough to cram in two towers. I could see a 3 or 4 storey commercial podium with a tower above but I doubt it will be much more than 150 metres which is a fair bit above the approved zoning.

Mostly everything in that area was a fair bit above the approved zoning... If this is a luxury hotel/condo mix then ceiling heights will most likely be higher, also with the mix (office/hotel/condo) 37s just doesn't seem enough. I see it being much taller.

 

[maestro]

^It's not coincidence the taller towers are on the south side of Bremner and facing York Street. 200 metres would put it in the league of the tallest in the area, Ice2. I just don't see it happening.

 

[Filip]

^It's not coincidence the taller towers are on the south side of Bremner and facing York Street. 200 metres would put it in the league of the tallest in the area, Ice2. I just don't see it happening.

I guess we'll see soon enough... The report should be out in the following weeks.

 

[Automation Gallery]

^It's not coincidence the taller towers are on the south side of Bremner and facing York Street. 200 metres would put it in the league of the tallest in the area, Ice2. I just don't see it happening.

Typical Toronto planning, put the taller towers south, closer to the waterfront,....they need their heads checked. Yeah, when it comes to new development heights your usually very negative..... i can see a future 200 meter structure on this site.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Automation Gallery:

Before you accuse others of bad planning, you should gain some knowledge on the original plans for the area before you start typing. Take 15 York for example - the only reason why you got significantly taller towers on the site is because of rezoning - the original plan forsee a maximium height of 115m on the site, which is broadly comparable to Telus.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/te/te060711/it005.pdf (p. 13/14)

Similiarly, in the case of ICE, the site only allows for a maximium of 130m

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-20290.pdf (p. 13)

And note that in both cases, developments to the north are meant to be taller - and I quote from the ICE final report (p. 11):

Bremner Boulevard, beyond which is Block 7 in the Railway Lands East, 18 York Street, which is zoned CR Block 7 and permits a 137-metre high mixed use development in two high-rise buildings; these sites are subject to an application for site plan approval for a 26-storey, 114-metre high, and 57,846 square metre office building on the east part (file 06 162121 STE 20 SA) and approved Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments application for a 37-storey, 137-metre high, and 74,135 square metre hotel/residential development (file 100021 (TO ZBL 2000 0017), and beyond is the railway

You are right about the fact that someone need to get their head checked. And who are the ones responsible for "bad planning" (your words, not mine, as per "put the taller towers south, closer to the waterfront")? The private sector who decided to challenge the original plans out of their own interests?

AoD

 

[whatever]

Given the precedents set by the other buildings along the stretch (both along Bremner and along Simcoe) I don't see how the city could reasonably oppose a 200m or even a 250m proposal on that lot. It's not like there's many residents in the area to complain about lost views either (other than at Infinity, where even a more modest proposal will block northerly views)

 

[Filip]

Automation Gallery:

Before you accuse others of bad planning, you should gain some knowledge on the original plans for the area before you start typing. Take 15 York for example - the only reason why you got significantly taller towers on the site is because of rezoning - the original plan forsee a maximium height of 115m on the site, which is broadly comparable to Telus.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/te/te060711/it005.pdf (p. 13/14)

Similiarly, in the case of ICE, the site only allows for a maximium of 130m

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-20290.pdf (p. 13)

And note that in both cases, developments to the north are meant to be taller - and I quote from the ICE final report (p. 11):



You are right about the fact that someone need to get their head checked. And who are the ones responsible for "bad planning" (your words, not mine, as per "put the taller towers south, closer to the waterfront")? The private sector who decided to challenge the original plans out of their own interests?

AoD

Exactly my point.. I remember the heights for that entire area to have been fairly 'low' and developers pushed the envelope, the city approved it all.

That is why I'm certain that if Fairmont asks for 200-250m they will get it no problem.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Filip,whatever:

The issue isn't whether they can get it approved - but whether it makes economic sense for the proponent to do so. I too can see something like MLS, but significantly above 200? Probably not very likely.

AoD

 

[Ramako]

I recall people saying that there was no way that 16 York would get approved over ~150m and look what happened. I agree with AoD, this will come down to economics.

 

[Filip]

Filip,whatever:

The issue isn't whether they can get it approved - but whether it makes economic sense for the proponent to do so. I too can see something like MLS, but significantly above 200? Probably not very likely.

AoD

Significantly above 200? Probably not... somewhere in that range, very likely!

I'm willing to bet on a 5 or so storey podium complete with shops and restaurants, some office space, a rooftop terrace and a 40-50 storey tower.. Let's put the mix at 20 floors hotel, the rest condos. We should have some hope considering Fairmont is building this in their home city.. I'd expect something nice.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Filip,whatever:

The issue isn't whether they can get it approved - but whether it makes economic sense for the proponent to do so. I too can see something like MLS, but significantly above 200? Probably not very likely.
AoD

Its a mere 15 meters difference from what we are talking about to MLS........15 meters here and 15 meters there, should not make much of a difference to be saying, Probably not very likely....

 

[maestro]

Typical Toronto planning, put the taller towers south, closer to the waterfront,....they need their heads checked. Yeah, when it comes to new development heights your usually very negative..... i can see a future 200 meter structure on this site. /quote]

Sheppard is closer to the Waterfront than Finch as well.

Anyways, I remember the original Hines plan that became Telus and MLS. The taller office tower (now MLS) was on south side of Bremner to limit the shadowing impact on Union Station. Infinity West is also 16 storeys to limit the shadowing on Roundhouse Park. As this development is north of Roundhouse Park, the shadowing shouldn't be much of an issue however, the poor planning may also extend to the MTCC and CN Tower. It will be interesting what get proposed and what gets subsequently approved.

I'm not counting on a point tower either since there isn't any residential. (well, what I remember as being posted on the last page) Fatter is better in that regards.

 

[isaidso]

Anything under 250 metres as stumpy is freakin' crazy but then aren't you the one suggesting 350m at Avenue & Bloor? I think you're living in the wrong century and galaxy.

Everything is relative. A building under 250 m looking stumpy next to one that's 553 m is merely stating fact. I'm not sure how you can argue anything else. Courtesy of caltrane over at SSP:
_____________
Ok China's Top Ten

1. Shanghi Tower - 632 meters (*wtf?*)
2. China Tower 117 (Tainjin) - 597 meters (taller than CN Tower)
3. ICC - 484 Meters (Hong Kong)
4 Nanjin GFC - 450 Meters
5. Guangzhou IFC - 440 Meters
6. Kingkey FCP - 439 Meters
7. Forum 66 - 388 Meters
8. Pinnacle - 360 Meters
9. Sino Steel - 358 Meters (Tanjin)
10.Gezhouba - 350 Meters


Better tell 1 billion Chinese people that not only are they living in the wrong century and galaxy, they're living in another space time continuum. Perhaps, you need to travel the world a bit more before it passes you by. A 350 metre tower might boggle your mind, but it's hardly an uncommon sight around the world. Did you fall asleep for a decade and just wake up?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

isaidso:

If you think that the economics and pattern of development Toronto is the same as in China, then you know what, you really need to travel more. Quoting us a list of supertall projects in China without a clear understanding of context is quite frankly pointless and smacks of skyscraper fanboyism - which is fine in itself, but not exactly grounded on reality. In addition almost everything Toronto is likely to build in the next what, 20 years are probably going to look stumpy next to a CN Tower, so I have a feeling you will be disappointed for a rather long time.

AoD

 

[Automation Gallery]

Better tell 1 billion Chinese people that not only are they living in the wrong century and galaxy, they're living in another space time continuum. Perhaps, you need to travel the world a bit more before it passes you by. A 350 metre tower might boggle your mind, but it's hardly an uncommon sight around the world. Did you fall asleep for a decade and just wake up?

Well said, I guess many people here in Toronto are still living under a rock... Also hard nowadays to believe that any individual in this town can predict of what will be built 20 freakin years down the line.