Isotack said:
Activist councilor wants affordable housing at the most prestigious address in the city...give me a break.
Click to expand...
He didn't make that claim though. Rather he was likely venting frustration over the lack affordable housing options in comparison to the glut of luxury dwelling options, for right or wrong...

...that said, I agree The One is too "squat" as the building being designed the way it is can take on far more height/load from what I gather. So with that perspective the architect in question is likely right here, despite the poor framing of it.

I will say though, I really hope this is not an indication that this councilor is going to make a political example and dissuade The City from giving this project the extra height it's seeking. As that will not do anyone good here. That is, not allowing the building to be taller will not equal more housing for those in need. Just saying.
 
I attended the consultation so I can confirm that councilor Layton is pretty strongly opposed to the height increase, as are several members of residents associations. Their only real argument seems to be the shadows on Jesse Ketchum, plus the usual NIMBY rhetoric like traffic congestion, disruption from construction, or simply that it's "too tall".
 
NeilV said:
I attended the consultation so I can confirm that councilor Layton is pretty strongly opposed to the height increase, as are several members of residents associations. Their only real argument seems to be the shadows on Jesse Ketchum, plus the usual NIMBY rhetoric like traffic congestion, disruption from construction, or simply that it's "too tall".
Click to expand...
/bleh
 
NeilV said:
I attended the consultation so I can confirm that councilor Layton is pretty strongly opposed to the height increase, as are several members of residents associations. Their only real argument seems to be the shadows on Jesse Ketchum, plus the usual NIMBY rhetoric like traffic congestion, disruption from construction, or simply that it's "too tall".
Click to expand...
Wish we could just use the same arguments for adding lanes to highways... it's just "too wide"
 
This issue that a project is 'too tall' always reminds me of a similar argument made for 10 York, where the original massing consisted of a point tower that was a bit taller but much more appropriate for that site (slightly offset from ICE Condos, preserving as much of the view for the 3 towers TO/FROM the lake), They removed some floors and turned it into a wall on the waterfront, and for what?? Just a guess but say +/-45 fewer inhabitants who realistically would be walking, not congesting the local streets with cars. That extra height of the point tower would not have bothered anyone at that location and, design aside would have created a more interesting dynamic with the adjacent ICE towers. It's not like the current design of 10 York makes up for its 'squat' form. We need a new NIMBY attitude, where people start to be up in arms for bad design in Toronto rather than excess height. As NeilV was saying above, we need to attend more of these meetings.
old 10 york.jpg
new 10 york.jpg
 
Last edited:
ciceror said:
for those who attended, did it look like things are in our favour?
Click to expand...
The general sentiment was very much the opposite. A lot of people (especially Mike Layton) seemed angry that Mizrahi had originally proposed around 338m several years ago, but after negotiations with the City they reached an agreement of 307m. The case was supposed to be closed, but now suddenly they're trying to go back to the original proposed height, essentially reneging on their agreement.

The main issue with the height seems to be the shadows on Jesse Ketchum. But to be fair, the proponents didn't make a very strong case for the height increase either. Their only argument was basically architectural elegance, which as we all know is not worth a dime in this city. I don't think they convinced anyone.

Mizrahi is going to have a tough fight ahead of him if he wants this height increase.
 
Last edited:
NeilV said:
The general sentiment was very much the opposite. A lot of people (especially Mike Layton) seemed angry that Mizrahi had originally proposed around 338m several years ago, but after negotiations with the City they reached an agreement of 307m. The case was supposed to be closed, but now suddenly they're trying to go back to the original proposed height, essentially reneging on their agreement.

The main issue with the height seems to be the shadows on Jesse Ketchum. But to be fair, the proponents didn't make a very strong case for the height increase either. Their only argument was basically architectural elegance, which as we all know is not worth a dime in this city. I don't think they convinced anyone.

Mizrahi is going to have a tough fight ahead of him if he wants this height increase.
Click to expand...
The shadowing is a fair comment, but the default anti-height sentiment is not. I wonder if any of the NIMBYs were actually from Pinnacle One 😀
 
architecture fan said:
The shadowing is a fair comment, but the default anti-height sentiment is not.
Click to expand...
Neither is pro-height obsession though. It's just a big penis-measuring contest in a city with an inferiority complex and an obsession with being seen as "world-class" based on the height of our buildings and whether we get a summer olympics. Doesn't matter that height-wise we already beat out London, Paris, Berlin (pretty much every European country for that matter), Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Singapore, etc. a half century ago.

This is an astounding and beautiful building, regardless of a few extra storeys.
 
zang said:
Neither is pro-height obsession though. It's just a big penis-measuring contest in a city with an inferiority complex and an obsession with being seen as "world-class" based on the height of our buildings and whether we get a summer olympics. Doesn't matter that height-wise we already beat out London, Paris, Berlin (pretty much every European country for that matter), Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo, Singapore, etc. a half century ago.

This is an astounding and beautiful building, regardless of a few extra storeys.
Click to expand...

I agree but you also have to consider that the extra few storeys could be the difference for the developer between making a good return on his and others’ investment or losing money. This in turn may influence this developer or others like him whether to try to deliver other well designed projects with quality finishing/execution. If the only considerations driving the approval process are height and affordability, you may well end up with multiple incarnations of city place.
 
khaldoon said:
I agree but you also have to consider that the extra few storeys could be the difference for the developer between making a good return on his and others’ investment or losing money. This in turn may influence this developer or others like him whether to try to deliver other well designed projects with quality finishing/execution. If the only considerations driving the approval process are height and affordability, you may well end up with multiple incarnations of city place.
Click to expand...
That may be the case were it not already bumped down from the application height. At that point, expectations should've been adjusted, no? Otherwise, this is just about maximizing profit, which is by no means a right.
 
zang said:
That may be the case were it not already bumped down from the application height. At that point, expectations should've been adjusted, no? Otherwise, this is just about maximizing profit, which is by no means a right.
Click to expand...
I think it was probably a risky move that the developer took thinking that they could manage even with the reduced height but given all the delays and inevitable cost and financing overruns the extra height is now needed more than they originally thought. Or perhaps they figured they could start and try with the city again later. If the height increase application is rejected, I wouldn’t be surprised if they take matters into LPAT though I am not sure how long such appeal would take.
 
Okay, this Mike Layton person's dwelling in Christie Pits, how much space does it take and how many people are living there now? How many people can potentially live there and how many affordable units can be built in its place? I bet if we convert his whole neighbourhood from some seriously overpriced luxury single family houses to an apartment complexes or duplexes we could seriously tackle housing affordability and community benefits. These ridiculous luxury suburb-type neighborhoods full of single family houses in the very centre of one of the biggest and most expensive cities in NA is just a monument to nimbyism and should just go.

He would really be a Good Samaritan if he sold this land of his at a low price to some local developer so unit prices won't be too high he could also remove some bureaucratic red tape and make a clear path for rezoning and jumpstart development of the land, I mean, if he cares so much about these issues he could set an example, he has an opportunity to do so.
 
It's easier to demonize developers (who actually build housing btw) than yellow belt NIMBYies who live in a single family houses in the city and oppose every single development they can. So the councillors do just that whereas ridiculous re-zoning application process is never addressed although it's one the main reasons for housing crisis.

Developers, including The One developers, understandably want to break even and hopefully make some good profit too, with all the red tape it's very costly and time consuming to develop anything anywhere in the city, so only big developers can afford that and they want a big return on their investment. There simply is no market for affordable housing, with all the regulations and yellow belt in place nothing will ever change.

The One is definitely not a first candidate for affordable housing units. But Mr. Layton's neighbourhood, on the other hand, is definitely among the top ones for potential redevelopment.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top