Miss J said:
Does anybody know where the Developer is as far as the process for applying for the extra height to 338 metres is at this point? Or where they and the city at at right now in the process? I seem to recall that originally the height was higher than when it is now, but they lowered it before going before the city for approval because of some public input on the design. I think.
Click to expand...
The rationale Mizrahi is pushing behind their recent request for more height is that more recent proposals in the area will "absorb" the new shadow that the extra height here would create, so granting the extra height here would not imperil hours of sunshine at nearby parks. It's impossible to know exactly how long the review process will take.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The rationale Mizrahi is pushing behind their recent request for more height is that more recent proposals in the area will "absorb" the new shadow that the extra height here would create, so granting the extra height here would not imperil hours of sunshine at nearby parks. It's impossible to know exactly how long the review process will take.

42
Click to expand...

oooh that's a very interesting argument! i didn't know that before...
IF... city approves these "recent proposals" in the area, then the shadow issue becomes moot...
ELSE... nothing gets approved at the proposed heights, and the one doesn't get its candy either...
go for broke I say! lol
 
interchange42 said:
The rationale Mizrahi is pushing behind their recent request for more height is that more recent proposals in the area will "absorb" the new shadow that the extra height here would create, so granting the extra height here would not imperil hours of sunshine at nearby parks. It's impossible to know exactly how long the review process will take.

42
Click to expand...
That's a good argument and almost humorous. It's basically saying there's going to be a lot of shadow anyways, so just give in and let us have our way, lol.
 
Miss J said:
That's a good argument and almost humorous. It's basically saying there's going to be a lot of shadow anyways, so just give in and let us have our way, lol.
Click to expand...
Well, yes precisely that.. growth in the city will only continue yes? So yes shadows are inevitable. Not about having ones way. Just reality of the situation of a city and what a city is. The spoiled ones need their fans condo penthouses and we need eye candy on the skyline. That’s tasteful for all. Meaning approve many designs not just what fits the neighbourhoods. Go big or go home.. or move to the outskirts. Plenty of sun there.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also the inevitable moving of parks will happen sometime in the future. Cities evolve over time. The current layout is not a permanent one. Never will be.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Well, yes precisely that.. growth in the city will only continue yes? So yes shadows are inevitable. Not about having ones way. Just reality of the situation of a city and what a city is. The spoiled ones need their fans condo penthouses and we need eye candy on the skyline. That’s tasteful for all. Meaning approve many designs not just what fits the neighbourhoods. Go big or go home.. or move to the outskirts. Plenty of sun there.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I agree. Toronto has tons of new skyscrapers proposed and many U/C and it's only going to get bigger and more dense. I love the density and tall towers and our skyline is getting really big. I have been told we will have more 150 metre towers than Chicago in a few years or so, and we already will have more 100 metre towers including UC soon. We're getting really big and hopefully it will continue.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Also the inevitable moving of parks will happen sometime in the future. Cities evolve over time. The current layout is not a permanent one. Never will be.
Click to expand...
Parks aren't random tectonic platelettes, moving about. The City never gets rid of existing ones, it only occasionally adds new ones, typically being smaller lots it acquires through redevelopment. Sure, cities evolve over time, but the planning department is looking to maintain as much sun as it can on existing parks for the long term because they do not move about. While there are small amounts of shadow incursion allowed on occasion, we still do not know if the new shadow from 9 more storeys here will be considered acceptable or not.

42
 
Theres plenty of enormous parking lots around the city that could easily be converted to park lands in the future. No clearly parks can’t litterally be moved, ( I though being adults on here that was a give in And clear And that my point would have come across. Clearly not. Missed the point entirely. Curious if it’s assumed people spend their time in a park at a certain time of day. And how far other parks are in context if this shadow drops on the park in question.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Theres plenty of enormous parking lots around the city that could easily be converted to park lands in the future. No clearly parks can’t litterally be moved, ( I though being adults on here that was a give in And clear And that my point would have come across. Clearly not. Missed the point entirely. Curious if it’s assumed people spend their time in a park at a certain time of day. And how far other parks are in context if this shadow drops on the park in question.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you could give us some clues about which huge parking lots in this area could be made into your new/replacement parks? A livable City requires parks (of many kinds) in ALL areas/neighbourhods so you cannot just decide that Park X can be abandoned as it (and those living near it) are in shadow all day due to new buildings and open Park Z several miles away. To quote @ProjectEnd "what are you talking about?"
 
I wonder if there is even a single surface parking lot in the area that could be shadowed by The One? I think the closest remaining parking lots are at Church and Bloor, or Canadian Tire.
 
ptbotrmpfn said:
Theres plenty of enormous parking lots around the city that could easily be converted to park lands in the future. No clearly parks can’t litterally be moved, ( I though being adults on here that was a give in And clear And that my point would have come across. Clearly not. Missed the point entirely. Curious if it’s assumed people spend their time in a park at a certain time of day. And how far other parks are in context if this shadow drops on the park in question.
Click to expand...
I'd love for you to show me just one.
 
Today’s update. Didn’t do a Friday one.
55A0802C-1B51-439F-A64A-106663E9B1A2.jpeg
773B4D7F-53D2-4177-A01C-70B7BC645582.jpeg
B50E1134-98A4-43DA-8ADC-0A485753941D.jpeg
3CF5F13C-0537-40DE-A3AF-C8EC6A2385FC.jpeg
A968DB39-CCA4-472D-8BD1-FA8E62D8E925.jpeg
E6F1BE50-6E1D-45DC-97EC-FF37304F6553.jpeg
70425A0E-27C4-4120-9C8F-E32284C6794B.jpeg
1C5E53BC-3B7A-4A91-AC73-F6FD25748A34.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top