buildup said:
Build something better, charge more for it, people will pay. There are countless examples of people paying more for good design.
Click to expand...

Where? The emerald park towers deals for almost 10% less than the hullmark centre that is across the street. You will argue that Hullmark is more stunning a design than Emerald Park?


Moreover, by these elevations, I can proclaim that these towers will not be masterpiece crown jewels for the city; however I will never say that they are of poor design. It is not like the developer is destroying this city by putting these two reasonable buildings on Yonge St. The fact that plain glass towers are not favored by everyone does not make glass towers destructive toward a community. I for one have despised Toyotas since the first time that I have had a chance to drive one, but that does not make Toyotas bad cars.

To me, if a building such as the X Condo gets approved, these twin glass towers should be smooth sailing for this city. But I will want to see the final render before I pronounce my opinionated judgment.

Once again, not everyone can be satisfied, but let's try to accept everyone's opinions. I'm happy for this city's development.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
1SuperiorPlace-Aug08-002a.jpg


Get the hint?
Click to expand...

This would actually make a lot more sense then what is being proposed. Instead of building two 58 storey pencil-dick towers 58 feet apart just build one big massive and imposing broad shoulder tower just as they do in the city of broad shoulders.
 
Last edited:
Peepers said:
This would actually make a lot more sense then what is being proposed. Instead of building two 58 storey pencil-dick towers 58 feet apart just build one big massive and imposing broad shoulder tower just as they do in the city of broad shoulders.
Click to expand...

No wonder you supported Rob Ford.
 
Automation Gallery said:
From what i understand, both buildings of Absolute cost aprox. 300 million dollars to build, for goodness sake i would hope that a couple of 58 storey, One Bedford/18 Yonge st. or even Murano/Buranos wouldnt be costing more than 200 million to build. I dont know i may be wrong.:confused:
Click to expand...

You are pretty far off the mark - while there was a hard construction cost premium for the absolute project it isn't in the realm of the 33% you suggested... also land is significantly cheaper in Mississauga. The exterior design features of the towers only constitute a portion of actual overall costs (which is my issue with the "cheap" label) - concrete, drywall, rebar, shoring, excavation, interior finishes of similar quality etc have similar costs from project-to-project and labour is unionized resulting in similar contracts - numbers certainly fluctuate as every project has unique features, soil/site conditions, contracts, interior/exterior finishes - but the real meat and potatoes of construction don't wildly vary as you suggested unless the project is really targeting the luxury market (in which case the interior finishes can really boost budgets and high end stone materials etc are used on the exterior)....

Given a variety of factors this project will almost certainly be more costly than the absolute project - which isn't really surprising, it is not an apples to apples comparision and a 2008ish - 2011ish build also has different input costs than a build that may not start until 2014.

I don't care to wade into the debate on the architectural merits of the tiny line drawing that has been posted, but I will go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps the rationale for the direction taken by the developer and aA has less to do with being "cheap", (since there is far less room to play with numbers than some forumers have suggested) and a lot more to do with a market driven approach - i.e. projects with a similar design vernacular have been very positively responded to by investors and consumers and absorbed fairly quickly... the motivation being 'if it ain’t broke don't fix it'.
 
Last edited:
Hi Traynor,

Re: Your confusion/comments regarding bribes vs extortion.

Rather than providing a long response detailing the planning process hopefully a somewhat simplistic explanation will be helpful:

Large urban centres across the country typically utilize zoning by-laws with height and density permissions well below local infrastructure carrying capacity and below densities envisioned in Official Plans or in the Toronto case well below the provincial planning framework outlined in the provincial policy statement and the growth plan that has specific density allocations and population allocation/projections for the City of Toronto. The general rationale for the lower zoning permissions is to allow greater local control by the city and to allow for the city to extract a portion of the land-value increase that properties enjoy following approvals for higher densities.

The opposite scenario would have greater use of "as-of-right" zoning which would create more certainty for neighbourhoods and development proponents while expediting the approvals process. This scenario would however pass the entire land valuation increase onto the original land owner with no direct fiscal benefit to the city/community.

Two different approaches that each have their merits, but you can see why the City of Toronto (and many other urban centres) artificially keep zoning lower to ensure that the community benefits from the land valuation increase that occurs on specific properties when higher densities are approved

TIFs and Land Value Capture are two other taxation tools that take advantage of land valuation changes that may occur on properties or across entire districts due to zoning, density, soil remediation, infrastructure improvements etc - these tools are used across North America, but don't have much history of use in Toronto.
 
Last edited:
Yeah thanks Mike,

My blatantly sardonic diatribe was to expose the painfully obvious charade that is "Density and Height restrictions waived in lieu of cash". Thanks for confirming everything I was saying.
 
Last edited:
Mike: Thanks, that was pretty illuminating. I'd wondered, but never totally understood why the system is set up the way it is. (With zoning being almost universally below what the city is "really" willing to accept. I'd assumed it was a mechanism to keep growth graduated & in check.) Why hasn't LVC caught on here?

Traynor: Please, please rein in the dramatic postings. You make a lot of valuable contributions around here, but this thread is almost unreadable now.
 
^ I'd caution that most zoning through actual neighbourhoods & communities is fairly representative as growth is not envisioned in those areas - it is the zoning in areas where growth is planned that isn't really a true indicator of the future direction of those centres & corridors. Part of the problem is a lot of the zoning in the downtown area has not been updated for decades.
 
Mike in TO said:
^ I'd caution that most zoning through actual neighbourhoods & communities is fairly representative as growth is not envisioned in those areas - it is the zoning in areas where growth is planned that isn't really a true indicator of the future direction of those centres & corridors. Part of the problem is a lot of the zoning in the downtown area has not been updated for decades.
Click to expand...

This problem of zoning not being conductive to growth is also a problem in Ottawa. The City is encouraging infill development, yet the zoning standards in many neighbourhoods where they want infill are set up in a such a way that the only way to realistically do same-scale infill (replacing a single detached with semis or towns) is by way of minor variance, because the lots that would be created are too narrow, and don't conform to the current zoning (or the lots don't meet maximum coverage provisions, or setbacks, etc).

Cities should look at what areas they want to see growth in, and then modify the zoning to make it more conductive to the kind of growth they want to see. Many people don't do infill because the process, even though it's encouraged by the city, is a dog's breakfast with all the variances and public consultation that's needed.
 
City planning....two 58-storey towers containing 960 residential condominium units on a shared 7-storey podium.
And here on DCN....proposed construction of two 58-storey towers containing 960 residential condominium units above a shared 7-storey podium.
Makes me wonder if these structures are not 65 storeys high.:confused:

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BUILDING
Proj: 9137519-1
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
CONTEMPLATED

501 Yonge St, Alexander & Grosvenor Sts, Maitland Place, M4Y 1Y3
$80,000,000 est
Note:
This project is extremely preliminary. Owner is seeking city council official plan amendment and rezoning approvals. Contact information for the architect will be released when approvals are secured. Schedules for design, tender and construction are undetermined. Further update early winter 2011.
A project manager at the owner has not been determined.
Project:
proposed construction of two 58-storey towers containing 960 residential condominium units above a shared 7-storey podium. The podium would contain retail uses at grade and two storeys of above grade parking with 302 parking spaces for residents and 58 parking spaces for visitors. Driveway access and servicing would be from Maitland Place. The lobbies for the residential condominiums would be on Alexander Street and Maitland Street.
Scope:
70,230 m²; 58 storeys; 2 structures; 960 units; parking for 360 cars; 1 acres
Development:....New
Category:...Apartment bldgs; Retail, wholesale services

http://dcnonl.com/cgi-bin/top10.pl?...398c7e2e3176&projectid=9137519&region=ontario
 
Automation Gallery said:
City planning....two 58-storey towers containing 960 residential condominium units on a shared 7-storey podium.
And here on DCN....proposed construction of two 58-storey towers containing 960 residential condominium units above a shared 7-storey podium.
Makes me wonder if these structures are not 65 storeys high.:confused:
Click to expand...

If they are actually 65 storeys, then at a "mere" 195m in height, the average floor-to-floor height would be 3m exactly -- which is definitely on the low-budget end of the building spectrum (residential buildings are typically around 3.5m floor-to-floor). This would not bode well for the overall appearance of the project, since if the developer is cheaping out on the floor-to-floor heights, we can expect the least possible expenditures for such things as cladding as well.

On the other hand, if the total number of storeys is 58, then the average floor-to-floor height would be 3.36m, which is still rather low but in the normal range.
 
Residential buildings are typically 2.8 to 3 metres floor to floor. Higher ends are 3.2 to 3.4 metres floor to floor. Office 3.5 to 3.7 metres floor to floor. Of course, these are just for the standard floors in a tower.
 
Mongo said:
If they are actually 65 storeys, then at a "mere" 195m in height, the average floor-to-floor height would be 3m exactly -- which is definitely on the low-budget end of the building spectrum (residential buildings are typically around 3.5m floor-to-floor). This would not bode well for the overall appearance of the project, since if the developer is cheaping out on the floor-to-floor heights, we can expect the least possible expenditures for such things as cladding as well.

On the other hand, if the total number of storeys is 58, then the average floor-to-floor height would be 3.36m, which is still rather low but in the normal range.
Click to expand...

City application says.............The height of the towers would be 192 metres., no mention of the podium height.
Could it be that the 7 storey podium is seperate and has yet to have the height confirmed..potentially there could be an additional 26-28 meters.
 
I know people are freaking over the renderings showing massing and they see boxes but what happens if the towers look like the Murano towers? Those turned out cool looking.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top