allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
3,382
It was also said in the meeting that some of the Section 37 Benefits (I think $20 million) were going to be used to pay for the PATH connection.
That seems incredibly surprising (and unexpected). While I appreciate the PATH, I don’t understand why that would be seen as a public benefit deserving of S37 funds.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,215
Reaction score
31,503
City:
Toronto
Is the main objection to the height increase that it will cast a shadow on Jesse Ketchum park? Because looking at the shadow study (here), it really doesn't seem that bad to me.
Yes! Gold Star.

While others are going on about this without referring at the Sun and Shadow studies, what they actually show is that the increased height will cause very little extra shadowing on Jesse Ketchem Park. It's really only from about 10 AM to 10:30 AM in the March & September studies when the increase would have an effect: before that time, the increased shadow is further west, after that time, the extra height does not add any new shadow owing to all the other recent tall buildings that have been approved. In the June studies, the shadow does not reach JKP at all.

TheOneSunShadowsMarSept1280.jpg


Close up on 10:18 AM:

TheOneSunShadowsMarSept10AM.jpg


42
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
1,280
Looking at the shadow diagram with the blue in it showing the extension mode in one of the photos up above . Shows no difference to extend the extra hieght or go even taller. Because it and other tower's shadow all ready covers most of the park at there proposed hieghts anyway !
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,205
Reaction score
55,293
Yes! Gold Star.

While others are going on about this without referring at the Sun and Shadow studies, what they actually show is that the increased height will cause very little extra shadowing on Jesse Ketchem Park. It's really only from about 10 AM to 10:30 AM in the March & September studies when the increase would have an effect: before that time, the increased shadow is further west, after that time, the extra height does not add any new shadow owing to all the other recent tall buildings that have been approved. In the June studies, the shadow does not reach JKP at all.

View attachment 354789

Close up on 10:18 AM:

View attachment 354788

42

Given the very specific issue of the school at this location, it would have made sense to me to optimize the shadow study for the times when the kids are likely to be in the yard/park

So pre-9am (lets say 8:45-9:00am)
Then recess 10:50-11:05am
Lunch 11:36-12:40
Recess 2:00pm-2:15pm
After school (from 3:10pm)

That's the human enjoyment perspective.

*times are specific to and accurate for this school.

****

The other way of looking at it, is that each tree in that yard has a minimum number of hours of light that it requires, on average, per day.
Then you reverse the issue and simply ask, does the incremental shadow taken you below the minimum threshold for the tree.

It really isn't hard to make studies functional and have them easily answer the most critical questions.

Then a thoughtful exchange of views of informed views can easily occur.
 

Attachments

  • 1634151148764.png
    1634151148764.png
    32.6 KB · Views: 55

zang

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 6, 2013
Messages
2,203
Reaction score
2,794
can someone clarify why the children require unobstructed access to sunlight? are they like cacti?
Really? You're gonna prioritize some rich faps getting access to a few extra floors of a one-percenter hyper-luxury condo over whatever remaining sunlight falls on a schoolyard for what will be the rest of the school's days?

Shadowing studies are taking into account human beings who *already* live/work/play somewhere. An extra floor or two may increase a business' heating bill by a couple hundred a year. It might render someone's solar panels useless. It may mean more ice damage to the old houses along Scollard. It may kill a few trees in the park or turn its grass brown. And it may mean some kids spend a freezing cold winter recess in a shadow. Why intentionally make school unpleasant for kids?

C'mon. This is a fantastic building, but good design takes humans into consideration, it doesn't ignore them.
 

evandyk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 22, 2019
Messages
1,682
Reaction score
5,808
Yeah, I don't think anyone "requires" sunlight, but it definitely is a benefit for most of the year in Toronto (particularly considering schools aren't open during most of the time it's not a benefit).

That said, I think that sunlight and shadowing is a totally overblown consideration in planning approvals.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,215
Reaction score
31,503
City:
Toronto
I've removed posts where things are getting too personal, while leaving a couple above that are already getting there but which at least still address the sunlight issue. If people want to continue to discuss the sunlight issue, great, but please pull back from the personal jibes, or, you know, holiday time!!!

42
 

Bjays92

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
1,310
Reaction score
3,486
Ok continuing the shadowing discussion. I've looked at the shadowing diagram and unless I'm mistaken or looking at it wrong the increased shadowing is very minimal almost negligible. It's only for a very short amount of time at a very specific time of year.

On top of that, as someone who plays sports, I gotta say I vastly prefer schoolyards which are shaded/shadowed to ones that are in bright sunlight. We cannot get the necessary amount of vitamin D purely from sunlight anyway so I don't buy that argument personally, I really don't understand how it's a big deal.
 

DirectionNorth

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2020
Messages
790
Reaction score
1,574
Ok continuing the shadowing discussion. I've looked at the shadowing diagram and unless I'm mistaken or looking at it wrong the increased shadowing is very minimal almost negligible. It's only for a very short amount of time at a very specific time of year.
I'm in favor of increased development - just pointing out that this height increase doesn't exactly have many benefits (unrelated to shadowing, it's a tangent I got caught up in, LOL).
On top of that, as someone who plays sports, I gotta say I vastly prefer schoolyards which are shaded/shadowed to ones that are in bright sunlight. We cannot get the necessary amount of vitamin D purely from sunlight anyway so I don't buy that argument personally, I really don't understand how it's a big deal.
In the summer, maybe. In the winter, sun is more pleasant (remembering that kids have to go outside during recess, unless something has changed), since kids are inside most of the time these days.
 

Top