Given teh height of towers in close proximity, you would most likely be looking in the high 30s for height if the tower is in the southern end of the site. If it is in the north or they do a double tower design, then I would think they would top out at 30. 365 Church, which can boast a similar location is looking at 37s. Radio City, which is practically next door has 25s and 30s for their towers.

THe only aberration in the area is the one slated for behind the Primrose, which is asking for 50+s I think.
 
Thernan said:
Given teh height of towers in close proximity, you would most likely be looking in the high 30s for height if the tower is in the southern end of the site. If it is in the north or they do a double tower design, then I would think they would top out at 30. 365 Church, which can boast a similar location is looking at 37s. Radio City, which is practically next door has 25s and 30s for their towers.

THe only aberration in the area is the one slated for behind the Primrose, which is asking for 50+s I think.
Click to expand...

365 church was already approved at the OMB for 30 storeys last year. So given this is a much more prominent corner, you know whatever being proposed will be much higher than 30. i wouldnt be surprised north of 40s.
 
urbansuburban said:
365 church was already approved at the OMB for 30 storeys last year. So given this is a much more prominent corner, you know whatever being proposed will be much higher than 30. i wouldnt be surprised north of 40s.
Click to expand...

I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Isn't this area still Wong-Tam jurisdiction? If so, there's very little hope. Remember, this is a councillor that has actually questioned the development of a parking garage, and the Holt Renfrew site due to "Shadowing concerns" over Jesse Ketchum PS.
 
DtTO said:
No offence, but you live in Mississauga. Why are you advocating for less parking when it is a convenience that people are willing to pay for? I'm not implying that I want more parking, but if it's underground, I don't really care. If you choose not to drive, traffic jams won't have any effects on your commute. It's just funny (and ironic) that the people most opposed to parking live in the boonies.

Anyways, this building is in the heart of downtown, and I definitely don't think it should be midrise. I personally hate point towers, so I would love to see the block split up, and built with several larger buildings with minimum podium space. However, I realize that it will most likely be a point tower, and in that case, I'd like to see a minimum 4s podium with at least 1s retail (ideally, 2, with high ceilings) and at least 30s tower. There's no reason why this area should have more height restrictions than Regent Park.
Click to expand...

Born and raised in this area, so I know it well.

Cities were built for people, not cars and time to get back to doing that.

I don't own a car and rent one when I need one. Use transit 100% for all my travels including business.

There are places for tall towers and midrise.

I hate square boxes.

You cannot put retail at the base of all building, as you will saturate the area and market to the point you have empty retail places or places coming and going because they can't survive due to the lack of income. Take a walk along Queen and Dundas from end to end and you will see what I am saying.

I can see Yonge having taller towers than Church or College.

Streets can only support X cars at X speed and where do you plan to put all those cars that exceed the max limit?? You have gridlock once you exceed the max limit.

If you walk around the area from Yonge to Parliament, Bloor to Dundas, you will find various buildings trying to rent out parking spaces, since the residents don't have cars to to fill those empty spaces. Rental building owners are loosing money by not filling those spots considering how old some of those building are. Same can be said down on the Queens Quay. Really, why do you need a car when things are within walking distance??

Not a fan of stand in the park towers.

If you travel Europe, most building are midrise with a higher density than towers and low podium.

I spend more time in Toronto than Mississauga most of the time.
 
DtTO said:
I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Isn't this area still Wong-Tam jurisdiction? If so, there's very little hope. Remember, this is a councillor that has actually questioned the development of a parking garage, and the Holt Renfrew site due to "Shadowing concerns" over Jesse Ketchum PS.
Click to expand...

You have incorrectly stated that Councillor Wong-Tam is anti-development, she is not so get your facts straight. There are good planning principles in place here in Toronto which is, in part, what guides her. Also, there's someone assigned to each development that can share the heat, the City Planner assigned to the project.
 
70 CARLTON ST
Site Plan Approval 13 135070 STE 27 SA Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Mar 18, 2013 --- --- --- ---
Site Plan Control (13-135070), Zoning By-Law Amendment (13-135076) and rental housing Demolition (13-135082) to erect a 38 storey tower atop of a 7 storey podium separated by a two-storey reveal comprising of 35149m2 of residential space 845m2 of retail space and 17m2 of institutional/other space. There will be a total of 202 parking spaces
 
Automation Gallery said:
70 CARLTON ST
Site Plan Approval 13 135070 STE 27 SA Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Mar 18, 2013 --- --- --- ---
Site Plan Control (13-135070), Zoning By-Law Amendment (13-135076) and rental housing Demolition (13-135082) to erect a 38 storey tower atop of a 7 storey podium separated by a two-storey reveal comprising of 35149m2 of residential space 845m2 of retail space and 17m2 of institutional/other space. There will be a total of 202 parking spaces
Click to expand...


is the parking lot included or is it just 70 and 72 carlton st?
 
ThomasJ said:
is the parking lot included or is it just 70 and 72 carlton st?
Click to expand...

The foorprint of those two buildings is pretty small. I think for a building of that size they would need the parking lots too, no? Especially if they want to have decent setbacks on both Church and Carleton Streets.
 
I was shown a rendering a few months back .... if there are no changes from what I saw this development is in my opinion the most unique proposal in the downtown (definitely not a box)
 
TOfan696 said:
I was shown a rendering a few months back .... if there are no changes from what I saw this development is in my opinion the most unique proposal in the downtown (definitely not a box)
Click to expand...


did what you see involve the parking lot to the north or just the two properties on carlton st.?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top