Northern Light said:
The Planning report is very clear that it does exist, on this app.



The first part of the above is entirely plausible; the second does not accurately describe this particular situation. The City is very much concerned about no sun at all on this park and school yard. (not just this app. in isolation.)
Click to expand...
There is an agreement for the existing project to the 308m height - however my understanding of legislation is that the subsequent rezoning for 338m in height would not be eligible for the old type of Section 37 and the subsequent density would instead be required to pay CBCs. The deadline for registering new Section 37 Agreements was September 2022.

Concerns regarding Jesse Ketchum may indeed be substantiated, but the impact from this proposal is mid-morning when the park already experiences substantial shadowing. For Jesse Ketchum, I'd be concerned about shadow impacts in the afternoon when the park mostly receives uninhibited sun right now, particularly during school lunch hour - which this does not impact.

These types of things are reviewed in that kind of detail at the OLT - and I'm sure Bousfield's testimony if it gets to a hearing will explain this type of nuance when reviewing shadow impacts. Similar justifications have resulted in some strong OLT rulings against the city in the past (see 307 Sherbourne, where the OLT more or less told the city it was out to lunch on shadow impacts on Allan Gardens).
 
UpwithOlives said:
In no significant way. There is a study posted somewhere on this site. The increase adds to the shadow in the 10:00 am to 11:00 am time window in March and September.
No other time of day or year.
Click to expand...

So this is exactly what I meant by significant. I had a feeling it was something like this.
 
This is an already very, very tall building. not seeing the harm caused by it not being taller.

Jesse Ketchum Park does get a lot of shade and it is also VERY well used by the community. To the point where adults have yelled at me for my kids using the field (sorry guys, this is a school playground, but I digress).
 
concrete_and_light said:
To be fair the reason people want the height increase isn't because of the public wants to be or would be in the penthouse. People want cool tall buildings that can be seen from all across the city and appreciated in that way from many places by many people as a dramatic peak on the skyline.

Now of course maybe that's a shallow reason and not a good reason to create new shadows on our holiest of holiest site Jesse Ketchum Park, but that is the thing to weigh as a trade-off value, not public access to the top of the tower.

Personally I think the skyline and this building's proportions (also in relation to 1 Bloor East and other buildings) would look better with it being taller. For me, having a higher peak at Yonge & Bloor would look very cool and this building's design is high quality enough to warrant it. And I do not personally care at all about sunlight on Jesse Ketchum (and personally find many of our parks with their wide open fields of grass are way too sunny and I generally cling to the small amounts of shade so I have a bias there...) but the park and schoolyard does have value for others and I don't personally go there and don't know how much it would be negatively impacted by not only increased shadowing from this but then potentially more shadowing from other proposals that would try to match the height and might get approved because precedent.

The problem is I don't have trust that when the City says "Shadowing bad. Jesse Ketchum must be protected from any new shadow and tall building stopped." I can't really say if it's actually bad because they always say height and shadowing is bad and it's a bit of a boy who cried wolf situation for me at this point.
Click to expand...

I also like to considerate the impact of height on their environments and the public realm. There's so many awesome skylines that have inhospitable pedestrian realms. This will undeniably created more shadows on public property. I don't think height should ever be prioritized over it and my impression is that what happening every time a proposal get a haircut. Planning does make questionable decisions with height. Not enough of us read their rationale. I don't consider Jesse Ketchum shadowing a strong argument considering the compromises made from previous developments. I will even say, with the history of development I know around Jesse Ketchum that this is disingenuous of planning to use as the basis of their argument. A much stronger argument would be the increase to the density however, that would need a deeper explanation to all interested parties. The design is preferable with the height increase although there's no reason a balanced look couldn't have been achieved with the current approved envelope.

I'm indifferent to the height. The approved height has already surpassed a major benchmark. The addition is just statistical. My indifference may also be that a negative decision from council is pretty meaningless. Mizrahi is the type to take this all the way to the province if necessary whether he needs these additional floors to offset inflation or not.
 
1/15

IMG_8497.jpg


IMG_8496.jpg


IMG_8499.jpg


IMG_8500.jpg


IMG_8504.jpg


IMG_8505.jpg


IMG_8523.jpg


IMG_8524.jpg
 
I’m sure the height increase is all about prestige, I mean Skytower. Will Pinnacle drop their request or will it be rejected as well.
 
mburrrrr said:
I’m sure the height increase is all about prestige, I mean Skytower. Will Pinnacle drop their request or will it be rejected as well.
Click to expand...
Yup Prestige! Sky Tower doesn't have shadowing issues that I know of which is the main problem with The One getting approved height increase.
 
mburrrrr said:
I’m sure the height increase is all about prestige, I mean Skytower. Will Pinnacle drop their request or will it be rejected as well.
Click to expand...
It may well be about prestige, but is there a real deciding factor about height as far as the City is concerned ? We've seen some levelling effect in the Entertainment District. I'm asking because I really don't know.
 
Last edited:
mburrrrr said:
I’m sure the height increase is all about prestige, I mean Skytower. Will Pinnacle drop their request or will it be rejected as well.
Click to expand...
Maybe so but for Pinnacle, adding 116 units without much extra cost (besides constructing those extra floors and supporting mechanical) could mean extra several million dollars of profit.
 
gamarad said:
I saw Mizrahi out for dinner with Doug Ford earlier tonight. Wonder if we'll see an MZO for the proposed height increase.

(I don't actually expect that to happen lol)
Click to expand...
I wonder if there is any coincidence between the recent height refusal and this (just having fun coming up with speculation haha)
Nice progress on this building nonetheless, can't wait to see it come up in the skyline.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top