ben.thebean1
Active Member
The beast is approaching your vantage point there haha, especially now that floors are getting repetitive and when spring rolls around it's going to start moving fast
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
Mercenary
Active Member
What floor is it currently on? Also we could use that diagram to show where it is in the construction process
UpwithOlives
Active Member
They just poured the walls for 19. The first residential floor, and just above the first mechanical levels.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
With that, I wonder if we could get a diagram to compare the goal height in comparison what we may end up getting. I'll wager we're likely going to end up pleasantly surprised either way.
Koops65
Senior Member
Not sure which version we'll be getting, the one on the left or the right, but the one in the middle is where we are now:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Thank you for this! /bows
...sure, I am for the proposed height...but I can live with the already agreed to one here. And I needed to be reminded of that.
Anyways, enough of me going on about this. As I don't want to overstay my welcome more than I already have here on this topic. >.<
Mercenary
Active Member
hopefully mizrahi wins the appeal. he should be able to demonstrate how little shadow impacts the park and what additional benefits the city will generate through a taller building with more property tax and iconic shots of midtown boosting tourism
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Just because you don't think there is doesn't make it true.
Cryptopreneur
Active Member
Fair enough. Same goes for the other "side".
xy3
Active Member
I live 20 minutes away and I'd rather have a shadowed park that was actually nice and worth visiting. If the city actually wanted to enhance residents quality of life theyd request a large donation for the extra floors. The funds could be used to demolish the ugly metal gazebo and build a gorgeous fountain/pond like the one at Parkwood Estate.
In its current condition, it'd be a huge understatement to say that Jesse Ketchum is a very provincial and utilitarian public space.
In its current condition, it'd be a huge understatement to say that Jesse Ketchum is a very provincial and utilitarian public space.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Show me where property tax impact, ‘iconic shots’, and boosting tourism fall under the planning act - which is what this application will be reviewed against if appealed.
The shadow study shows it will have shadow impacts. That’s a valid planning argument. Nothing else you list is even considered.
There seems to be a big misunderstanding of how planning actually works from quite a few people in this thread. You’re all forgetting that Mizrahi already negotiated the current height with the city. There were multiple reasons why it wasn’t approved at the original height to begin with - the biggest issue being the shadow impact. Those reasons haven’t magically disappeared.
C-mac
Senior Member
Okay, I'm going to jump back in here for one final post regarding the height on this project, and can possibly be applied to other discussions regarding height of buildings.
So the city turns down the increased height proposal with "shadowing" as the reason. Without even getting into just how much shadowing the extra height will cause, isn't there a debate to be had here at the core of the issue? I mean it's gets down to ethics. For all intensive purposes, ethics are based on what society feels is right and wrong.
Let's say I live in the area of Jesse Ketchum Park, (and we don't know that I really don't) and I don't care about the park. I'm not a park person and it does nothing to make me happy. Sky scrapers on the other hand do make me happy and that's my Jesse Ketchum Park. Why do the park lovers get priority over my preference? Did they take a vote with local residence in the area to see if the shadowing of the park is more important to local residence then a height increase on the building?
I'm actually curious to know so if I'm missing something here or anyone has fruitful feedback please let me know.
So the city turns down the increased height proposal with "shadowing" as the reason. Without even getting into just how much shadowing the extra height will cause, isn't there a debate to be had here at the core of the issue? I mean it's gets down to ethics. For all intensive purposes, ethics are based on what society feels is right and wrong.
Let's say I live in the area of Jesse Ketchum Park, (and we don't know that I really don't) and I don't care about the park. I'm not a park person and it does nothing to make me happy. Sky scrapers on the other hand do make me happy and that's my Jesse Ketchum Park. Why do the park lovers get priority over my preference? Did they take a vote with local residence in the area to see if the shadowing of the park is more important to local residence then a height increase on the building?
I'm actually curious to know so if I'm missing something here or anyone has fruitful feedback please let me know.
xy3
Active Member
I enjoy aesthetically pleasing parks like Nordheimer Ravine, Jean Sibelius Square, Ramsden Park. Jesse Ketchum is just drab, with no buildings fronting onto it, or no fountains. Nothing to animate it. There are so many nicer parks a stones throw away.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
You can look up the original staff report. It goes into much more detail than current staff reports do.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Part 1 of 2 taken on January 23, 2023:
