cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,948
Reaction score
989
I've noticed everytime a building goes above 40 storeys or more. In an all around precast facade building to the top . They seem to chop it down to size and I don't understand why. New York City and Chicago still builds tall precast skyscrapers even today. But Toronto developers look at it as if it's taboo why are they so cheap !!
 

Rascacielo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
14,943
Buildings look good, but the mech penthouses look like stacked containers, as if to advertise that the towers are built cheaply because they're affordable housing (and deflect criticisms of the 'expensive' brick cladding).
 

WislaHD

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
9,745
Reaction score
8,752
can the city PLEASE stop bloody doing this?????
Yup, in a rental project like this there was certainly no incentive for the developers to build shorter. Have to imagine this is the result of negotiation with the city.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,654
Reaction score
3,255
Yup, in a rental project like this there was certainly no incentive for the developers to build shorter. Have to imagine this is the result of negotiation with the city.
Haha...chop chop, and more negotiations
And to think this being affordable housing was suppose to be fast tracked...?:rolleyes:
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,245
Reaction score
26,738
City:
Toronto
When floors are being chopped off during the planning process, more often than not it's because the buildings as they were designed were going to shadow something, most often a park, that the City does not want any more shadow on. I haven't had the time to check out the docs in this case, but…

suggesting that the City chops things simply for the sake of chopping them, and not for a specific reason (even if the reason doesn't feel important to you), means you're not paying attention. There's always some reason: the City has to state why it feels something should only be so high. The developers can go to LPAT and argue for more if they don't like the City's stance, so the City has to be able to back it up.

42
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,057
Reaction score
3,732
Yep. Way some folks go on about it makes one wonder if they're cutting the height of the thing all they way back to the podium. 46 stories while not as high as 50, is still quite high.
 

Deadpool X

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
Messages
517
Reaction score
804
I wonder for how long will the City fight shadows for every park? The city will keep growing and more people will need to find a home. There will be a time when we will run out of the sites that can be economically developed if the City insists on not having shadows.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,702
Reaction score
22,233
When floors are being chopped off during the planning process, more often than not it's because the buildings as they were designed were going to shadow something, most often a park, that the City does not want any more shadow on. I haven't had the time to check out the docs in this case, but…

suggesting that the City chops things simply for the sake of chopping them, and not for a specific reason (even if the reason doesn't feel important to you), means you're not paying attention. There's always some reason: the City has to state why it feels something should only be so high. The developers can go to LPAT and argue for more if they don't like the City's stance, so the City has to be able to back it up.

42
You're entirely correct 90+% of the time (including this site), but there certainly are others that are the result of personal slights that, while hilarious, are certainly a reality...
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,245
Reaction score
26,738
City:
Toronto
Now, down to 31 floors, a reduction from the previous proposal of 35 (4-storeys gone), and a Loss of 28 Affordable-Housing units on a Subway in the middle of #TOCore...?

That's all covered in our front page story.

Developers can ask for whatever height, and however many units they want to build, affordable or otherwise, but they are always going to run into the standard formulas against which their proposals are reviewed by the City. Developers know well enough that parks are sacrosanct when it comes to adding new shadow on them, so it would not come as a surprise that some storeys have to come off each tower so that the nearby park maintains its sunlight. Sure, this can be read as a cut to the of number affordable units here, but those units were never going to exist if they were on places that the City wouldn't allow them to be built. The City simply won't accept budge on some things.

42
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
427
Reaction score
1,154
City:
Toronto
The City simply won't accept budge on some things.
Currently...but our volunteers work to ensure that some things that are deemed "Sacrosant" in City-Planning need to be reconsidered in a 2020's context.

We are going thru a similar 'Shadow -vs- Affordable-Housing' discussion on the HOUSING NOW site at 405 Sherbourne, where we are pushing to ADD floors and Affordable-Units.

 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,205
Reaction score
2,127
Preserving the potential for quality public spaces over private housing above the ground is paramount at the aggressive densities currently being built downtown. It's absolutely terrible developers are using affordable housing as a tactic to convince council to compromise on sound planning policy but, not unexpected. There's very little reason in building affordable units downtown at current real estate values and the buildable densities required.
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
427
Reaction score
1,154
City:
Toronto
Preserving the potential for quality public spaces over private housing above the ground is paramount at the aggressive densities currently being built downtown. It's absolutely terrible developers are using affordable housing as a tactic to convince council to compromise on sound planning policy but, not unexpected. There's very little reason in building affordable units downtown at current real estate values and the buildable densities required.
Could not disagree more. "Sound Planning Policy" means creating places for people to live near existing services.

Minor 'Shadow on a Park' is a much lower-priority than creating an additional 28 new Affordable-Housing Units at Yonge & Carlton.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,551
Reaction score
35,261
Could not disagree more. "Sound Planning Policy" means creating places for people to live near existing services.

Minor 'Shadow on a Park' is a much lower-priority than creating an additional 28 new Affordable-Housing Units at Yonge & Carlton.

I see this argument as problematic.

I certainly support affordable housing; more of it; and in virtually all neighbourhoods including my own.

But I don't think one moves the needle on support for same by being dismissive of very real quality of life concerns.

There are lots of choices as to how to balance things out; meaning quality of life and increased housing supply.

Most of those choices don't impinge on quality of life.

I completely get the 'minor' shadow' argument, which may, at times, be entirely legitimate.

The problem with it, however, is that most downtown parks are far from shadow free.

That shadowing is cumulative, each shadow may be minor, or minor in its accretion (increase vs what was); but when you add that to the next building and the one after that and so on...

You can end up leaving a park in substantial darkness.

****

I have other issues though w/this desire to put most of the affordable housing in existing higher density communities.

1) The argument that this relates to services available implies that additional services cannot and will not be added to communities in which they are currently lacking.
Why not simply add those services that are required to an under-serviced area? Childcare, employment-supports, mental health supports, good transit etc.

2) While I absolutely support affordable housing downtown (including more of it); I do think the value-for-money question is a fair one. If 2 affordable units in Etobicoke or Scarborough can be delivered for the same
cost at 1 unit downtown; shouldn't we be considering what strategy will house the homeless more quickly?

3) Height in any form (private, public, luxury to RGI) built-form carries with it inherent additional expense, irrespective of land value, once you get past 30-40 floors. This means higher rents. All the while we let
opportunities to intensify major roads in the suburbs with 5-12 storeys languish.

4) Driving opposition to affordable housing by not at least appearing to consider objections to built-form, as if they might be legitimate, serves to garner even stiffer opposition; which may result in existing problems being made
worse, rather than better.

5) I also remain persuaded that inclusionary zoning as a strategy is very problematic. One can see in many proposals, such as 1 Yonge, that the lower-income housing has lesser finishes on the exterior, not just the interior.
This may serve to stigmatize residents; and is contrary to contemporary logic in building complete communities, where one seeks to remove the stigma of your address (including the floor you're on). That set of issues can be addressed; but it hasn't been thus far in many of these proposals.
 
Last edited:

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
427
Reaction score
1,154
City:
Toronto
I see this argument as problematic.

I certainly support affordable housing; more of it; and in virtually all neighbourhoods including my own.

But I don't think one moves the needle on support for same by being dismissive of very real quality of life concerns.

There are lots of choices as to how to balance things out; meaning quality of life and increased housing supply.

Most of those choices don't impinge on quality of life.

I completely get the 'minor' shadow' argument, which may, at times, be entirely legitimate.

The problem with it, however, is that most downtown parks are far from shadow free.

That shadowing is cumulative, each shadow may be minor, or minor in its accretion (increase vs what was); but when you add that to the next building and the one after that and so on...

You can end up leaving a park in substantial darkness.

****

I have other issues though w/this desire to put most of the affordable housing in existing higher density communities.

1) The argument that this relates to services available implies that additional services cannot and will not be added to communities in which they are currently lacking.
Why not simply add those services that are required to an under-serviced area? Childcare, employment-supports, mental health supports, good transit etc.

2) While I absolutely support affordable housing downtown (including more of it); I do think the value-for-money question is a fair one. If 2 affordable units in Etobicoke or Scarborough can be delivered for the same
cost at 1 unit downtown; shouldn't we be considering what strategy will house the homeless more quickly?

3) Height in any form (private, public, luxury to RGI) built-form carries with it inherent additional expense, irrespective of land value, once you get past 30-40 floors. This means higher rents. All the while we let
opportunities to intensify major roads in the suburbs with 5-12 storeys languish.

4) Driving opposition to affordable housing by not at least appearing to consider objections to built-form, as if they might be legitimate, serves to garner even stiffer opposition; which may result in existing problems being made
worse, rather than better.

5) I also remain persuaded that inclusionary zoning as a strategy is very problematic. One can see in many proposals, such as 1 Yonge, that the lower-income housing has lesser finishes on the exterior, not just the interior.
This may serve to stigmatize residents; and is contrary to contemporary logic in building complete communities, where one seeks to remove the stigma of your address (including the floor you're on). That set of issues can be addressed; but it hasn't been thus far in many of these proposals.

There is no functional way to deliver new Affordable-Housing at the speed and scale that Toronto says that it wants to (40,000 new units by 2030) without stepping upon some of the things that people would describe as "very real quality of life concerns".

Sometimes that means Shadow, sometimes that means Parking, sometimes that means "Built-Form" and Design preferences...the list of local preferences/concerns is virtually endless once any specific-site is suggested.

NOTE : That doesn't matter if it is a 3-storey project or a 30-storey project.

The process since the 1970's in Toronto has been over-weighted to the preferences of current residents, at the expense of future-residents. Our volunteer work leads to real improvements on the delivery of new affordable-housing units - and if that is "problematic" for some, we can live with that outcome.

AH_NIMBY_MOSAIC_2020_SM.png
 

Top