HousingNowTO
Senior Member
OK, any idea on what the new HEIGHT-LIMIT on that corner is now in M or Storeys..? Thx!
- Thread starter greenleaf
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
@TwinHuey is best placed to identify what elevation limit would apply in this section.
In terms of the site overall, obviously @Tuscani01 has identified that this is an impact, but my cautious read is that there is enough footprint left, even while not touching the Bay-side heritage to do something workable here. It just wouldn't be the same as it was previously conceived of, which likely means a delay.......
It would also be a highly irregular shape. Which UT'ers would love.....but has impacts on build costs.
Last edited:
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Looks like it may be around 50 metres. As @Northern Light pointed out, it likely just means moving around the massing. It’s a big enough site to play around with.
Northern Light
Superstar
Does this impact any building already approved and under construction that has not yet reached an offending height?
***
So far, my read is that the most conspicuous impact is on the 483 Bay proposal, which would be toast in its current form. (St. Mike's Western Approach)
Last edited:
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
For clarity, approved, but not yet under construction? 483 Bay definitely offends the new zoning order by a fair margin.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Approved and no building permits = impacted. Approved and under construction ≠ impacted.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
So 522 University, but not The United BLDG as an example?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Neither of those particular projects are affected.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Granted. But if they where in the hypothetical?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
If 522 were under the path at its current height / articulation, yes, it would be affected. As United Bldg has a permit and is under construction, it would not.
Off the top of my head, ones to look out for:
Off the top of my head, ones to look out for:
- KingSett - Atrium on Bay
- GWL - 200 University
- Northam - 250 University
- Northam - 483 Bay
- CentreCourt - 260 Adelaide (it's riiiight on the cusp though so maybe not)
- KingSett - 214-230 Sherbourne (which, interestingly, they've already offered to sell back to the City...)
- Dash - 225 Queen East
- Lamb - 75 Ontario
Last edited:
TwinHuey
Active Member
Sorry @Northern Light, I wish I could provide some insight but my experience / knowledge is dated. All I recall is that Transport Canada required H1 heliports to have approach / departure corridors at an 8° slope extending out 625m from the helideck. No idea about the corridor width requirements.
I know this may sound a bit far fetched, but if HSC moves the heliport to the roof top of the proposed new tower, it would add approximately 17 storeys of allowable height under the approach / departure corridors.
I'd be curious to see what the approach / departure corridors look like with the helideck on the western edge of the new tower.
I would hope that slightly changing the angle of the corridors to the new tower would not result in restrictive zoning for additional properties nor would it be an issue from a flight operations perspective. Both would need to be confirmed.
Hospital For Sick Children: Peter Gilgan Family Patient Care Tower | 169m | 29s | Sick Kids | Stantec
As long as they're not touching the Zeidler atrium, I'm on board!
Northern Light
Superstar
For @ProjectEnd a closer look at the western and eastern approaches for St. Mikes.
Now the Eastern Approach:
Now the Eastern Approach:
khris
Senior Member
Someone should really think about shrinking that cone to the east and also get rid of the north approach.
Northern Light
Superstar
Why would they do this, when:
a) They just enlarged it, literally, and did so, it would seem, because of a clear safety issue.
b) Why would we limit safe transport of medically emergent patients to world leading hospitals, so a dozen building sites can be taller? Does this really seem like a good trade? Not to me.