Whatever that is you posted, it looks like its' straight out of the mid 90's in Miami.
 
It sure doesn't look very ambitious, given the site's location.
 
It sounds like a deal on this site will be closing in the next few weeks and through negotiations with the purchaser between the ORC, the city, and the Ministry of Tourism and Culture, heritage features of the building will be saved. (That's a bit vague, but it's something!)
 
In this case, I am fine with only saving a portion of the facade. I am big on preservation (seeing the story on the Temple building yesterday was a reminder of some of the great architecture that we have lost) but won't lose any sleep over the loss of this building. Attack me for that if you will, but its just my opinion on this one building. I find it to be ugly, forgettable, and oppressively institutional. I have read the many arguments as to why 90 Harbour has some architectural/historical significance, but I was not swayed by them.

This is a spot that would be well served by increased density and I would welcome some modern architecture here.
 
I'd be good with just using the front facade as the front of the base of the tower that will replace it.. Pretty much one of the only interesting parts of it anyways.
 
1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft.
therefore 2.5 acres = 108,900 sq. ft.
@ 20 times coverage that’s around 2,100,000 sq. ft.
With a 10,000 sq. ft. floor plate (average) that’s about 218 floors roughy (501 Yonge St. is .87 acres)

More likey it will come down to negotiations and cost so I agree with AG It could easily be a couple of 60 to 70 storey towers.

Retail in the podium is probably unlikely as it’s not a very pedestrian friendly area – but it could be the city wants to change that.
 
I would expect a significant commercial contribution whether via a podium or separate tower. In either case, the average sized floor plate will be a lot more than 10,000 square feet.

AFAIK, the city is still debating whether to unload of the Harbour Commission lands so I'm not sure why it's continually brought up in this thread. Whatever happens, it won't be part of this development.
 
Big Daddy said:
1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft.
therefore 2.5 acres = 108,900 sq. ft.
@ 20 times coverage that’s around 2,100,000 sq. ft.
Click to expand...

So let's assume a 5-storey podium using 75% of the lot:

108,900 x 0.75 x 5 = 408,375 sq. ft.

Assuming a 15,000 sq. ft. floorplate, there would be enough remaining area for 118 storeys, almost certainly as two towers at perhaps 54 and 64 storeys (59 and 69 storeys with podium), somewhat taller than Ice condos. Assuming that the full 20x allowance is used.

.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't count on anything above 12-13 times coverage, which I think is pushing it too. But hey, keep working the calculators.
 
Yeah, the pdf linked to a few posts up suggests a coverage of 12x. So using that number, 108,900 x 12 = 1,306,800 sq. ft.

Minus 408,375 for the (rather large) podium leaves 898,425 sq. ft. for the tower(s). At 15,000 sq. ft. per storey, that's enough for 60 storeys.

So a large 5-storey podium covering 75% of the block, topped by a single 60-storey tower (for a total of 65 storeys) would fit the city's own density guidelines, without appealing to the OMB for more density.

Or on the other extreme, perhaps an 87-storey tower (or two towers adding up to 87 storeys) without a podium at all. This would also fit the current density limits for the site.
 
Last edited:
so, what are "the current density limits for the site"?

This site is bigger than "Ice" and they are building 124 stories of condos (with 10,000 sq ft floor plates) and 30 floors of office (with likely 20,000 sq ft floor plate). If the people buying this site can't negotiate coverage comparable to their neighbours, then they don't deserve it.
 
Last edited:
According to this sales brochure, the current allowable density is 6 times coverage, but it has considerable potential to be rezoned up to 12 times coverage. Since it is the City that is trying to sell the land, this sounds like a reasonable assurance and not just realtor's spin.
 
Mongo said:
Yeah, the pdf linked to a few posts up suggests a coverage of 12x. So using that number, 108,900 x 12 = 1,306,800 sq. ft.

Minus 408,375 for the (rather large) podium leaves 898,425 sq. ft. for the tower(s). At 15,000 sq. ft. per storey, that's enough for 60 storeys.

So a large 5-storey podium covering 75% of the block, topped by a single 60-storey tower (for a total of 65 storeys) would fit the city's own density guidelines, without appealing to the OMB for more density.

Or on the other extreme, perhaps an 87-storey tower (or two towers adding up to 87 storeys) without a podium at all. This would also fit the current density limits for the site.
Click to expand...


from the pdf ... 90 H is a 160,000 sf, 5-storey office building with 3-storey wings in 1953

Frontages:
Harbour Street - 557 feet
York Street - 160 feet
Lakeshore Blvd. – 537 feet


i'm thinking that 2 x 40-45s towers of 12,000 sq ft floorplates will be built next to the west and east wings incorporating the existing building as its' podium; or 1 supertall of 80s+ and convert the parking lots to greenspace.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top