artyboy123
Senior Member
That's a first...
- Thread starter artyboy123
- Start date
That's a first...
Northern Light
Superstar
While that's nice........
This indicates to me that that sample of calls may not be be entirely representative.
Our volunteers' advice was to - 1.) Grow the project at least 2x size, 2.) Keep the Rental & Affordable-Rental Ratios -- and 3.) Ask the City & Province for an unappealable CIHA order -
Archived - Community infrastructure and housing accelerator
Learn about the land use tool and read the guideline on how and where it can be requested by local municipalities to expedite zoning.www.ontario.ca
I'm going to disagree with your volunteers.
At 2x the height, on the south side of Gerrard, you're bound to hit shadowing issues on Allan Gardens; irrespective of one's preferences on policy, this is the signature sun-protected park in the City, I don't see the City allowing that policy to be encroached here, the precedent would unwind the policy City wide.
The City remains opposed to that idea; and yes, that's post federal ministerial letter.
If the City opposes the idea, the order you suggest seeking would never be requested by the City, and therefore not granted.
Sometimes, it's important to take the win as it is; being greedy here will kill the project entirely. The developer is correct.
Bad tea leaf reading by some here.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
So, we will keep chipping away at them ... and hopefully, "unwind the policy City wide" -- as we helped to do on PARKING MINIMUMS... which were once also an almost "Untouchable" standard at City Hall.At 2x the height, on the south side of Gerrard, you're bound to hit shadowing issues on Allan Gardens; irrespective of one's preferences on policy, this is the signature sun-protected park in the City, I don't see the City allowing that policy to be encroached here, the precedent would unwind the policy City wide.
The City remains opposed to that idea; and yes, that's post federal ministerial letter.
If the City opposes the idea, the order you suggest seeking would never be requested by the City, and therefore not granted.
We would also suggest that this is a specific-policy where "City Planning" ideals from TO-Core (2018) -- are no longer aligned with the highest-priorities of our current City Council cohort going into 2024.
Councillors and City Planning staff may want to ask the current Residents in Allan Gardens how they feel about "Shadow on a Park" -vs- "Additional Affordable Rental Housing" being built nearby...?
What someone who lives in a Toronto encampment wants to see in their new mayor | CityNews Toronto
The city moved in and evicted some encampment residents from parks two years ago. Activists condemned the move, as did Toronto's Ombudsman.
toronto.citynews.ca
egotrippin
Senior Member
I might be wrong in my assessment here, but considering a major bottleneck in getting housing built right now is skilled labour shortages - especially crane operators - it almost seems like a shorter building that faces less opposition would get homes built and delivered faster. Build 7 storeys, move onto the next. More height brings with it more complexity, opposition, etc. Why not try to rapidly build as much midrise, as well as continue to intensify older neighbourhoods with infill builds such as what we're seeing in laneways and additions to lowrise commercial strips
Seems to me the fight that'll come with trying to double the height could delay the housing actually getting built and occupied.
Seems to me the fight that'll come with trying to double the height could delay the housing actually getting built and occupied.
Northern Light
Superstar
There's a key difference; I opposed parking minimums; I favour the sun-protected status of parks.
The former had no logical reason, the second is essential to quality of life and breathable urban air.
You mean the residents who have repeatedly been offered housing? Each and every one of them! I'm very sympathetic to the homeless writ large and to issues of poverty and inequality.
I'm less sympathetic to people dealing drugs, running criminal theft rings and possessing stolen property (and yes I'm sure), and regularly engaging in other criminal conduct including violence.
Not the best idea; the Councillor isn't sympathetic either.
This is what Councillor Moise had to say about it awhile back:
"
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
We fundamentally disagree on the value of the current "sun-protected status of parks" in Toronto policy... as discussed in this recent GLOBE article by @AlexBozikovic
The choices that the City is making are as illogical as those they made in the past about Parking-Minimums.
LINK - https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-architecture-apartments-shade/
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes, we disagree, which means the policy won't change.
Let's get affordable housing built.
Attempting to change this policy is against science, pro-climate change and won't be successful. It's therefore a distraction to suggest it; and it will do nothing but delay affordable housing.
But let's move on here.
1Ć0
Active Member
I'm not going to comment on the built form, density or value of sun protected parks, but isn't Ramsden Park also considered a "Sun Protected Park" in TOcore, like Allan Gardens (Except that it doesn't have a SASP associated w/ it)?
And the city has recently taken a surprising, but welcome approach to height on 931 Yonge (TCHC HQ) and associated shadowing impacts on Ramsden Park. Maybe they are turning a leaf here slowly and could be open to some shadowing on some "protected" parks.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Nope, same thing happened on a nearby STUDENT HOUSING project on Sherbourne earlier this year -- and it became 2x the original proposed height at the OLT...
Moss Park Student Housing Development Grows Significantly | UrbanToronto
A proposed student housing development in Toronto's Moss Park neighbourhood has evolved, now significant larger. This move comes after a community consultation process highlighted a strong need for additional student housing.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Yes, we successfully advocated for that same "More Affordable Housing should be the PRIORITY instead of Shadow-Policy" on the TCHC HQ site at ROSEDALE Station.
Hopefully, that policy-shift will become more accepted at City Hall in 2024.
TCHC HQ (2023) - https://x.com/HousingNowTO/status/1638659192415219712
Northern Light
Superstar
Saria
New Member
The consensus from the local community members during the call was clear, the height proposed is satisfactory in relation to the lot size the builder is working with.
If the builder wishes to go bigger they could assemble the adjacent buildings on that lot. It was not clear if this was attempted, if it hasn’t then perhaps it should be explored, keep it 7 stories as it will also be faster to build at that height, but add more units by expanding the width.
If the builder wishes to go bigger they could assemble the adjacent buildings on that lot. It was not clear if this was attempted, if it hasn’t then perhaps it should be explored, keep it 7 stories as it will also be faster to build at that height, but add more units by expanding the width.
allengeorge
Senior Member
What is the maximum height that can be ‘quickly’ built (that phrase has been tossed around on this thread) and avoids shadowing?
Northern Light
Superstar
Any height casts a shadow. There's no such things as no shadow; unless we have 'vampire' buildings now.... LOL
The issue is whether a shadow is long enough to intrude into a protected space (Allen Gardens); how much so, and for how long otherwise.
****
In this case, I've gone and had a look.
Allen Gardens isn't close to being infringed by net new shadow here, so there would be height room on that basis, I don't have time to do the calculations right now, but suffice to say, a couple of more floors would not have any impact, material or otherwise on the park.
What it would do is shadow Gerrard and the houses to the north a bit more.
The orange is what you're interested in:
(March profile)
Any shadowing concern here policy wise will be either street-based (minimum hours of sun on Gerrard, or on 'neighbourhoods'. There's no way they don't have 3 floors, maybe more before they encroach the park.
****
Quick building is based on unform floors and lighter regulatory or construction techniques.
At 7s, they are already tall enough to have triggered a number of add-on requirements vs say 4s, there is no material add-on over the next few floors.
Except; non-standard floors add costs and construction time. (any change in size/floor plate, in particular, but other changes such as different glazing/cladding can also add time)
****
Simplifying the build here, and adding a few more units/ft2 here would be best achieved as follows:
1) Nix the balconies, both inset and external, they are low value, actually decrease natural light in the units and form a non-standard element (2 different styles)
2) Increase the setback on floors 2-4 (remove the overhang) but reduce the setback on floors 5-6, this should be space-neutral, but allows a more efficient build and suite layouts.
3) Remove the non-standard notch on the 4th floor.
4) Bring floors 6-7 forward a bit, this should be net new units/ft2.
I'd have to see the modeled shadow impact, but my instinct is that another floor wouldn't hurt here, but would probably contravene policy, and may not be worth the fight or the design fees.
Last edited:
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
Fwiw Prime Condos set the precedent for shadowing the park with its OLT ruling.