In regards to setbacks, I just went by the site and measured the distance between this building and the one immediately south. I measured balcony railing to balcony railing using the trusted one-meter-step technique and the old eyeball, so the accuracy is probably +/- 20%, but the distance came out to 8.5 meters. That is ridiculously close. So close that you can probably talk to a person on the balcony across without raising your voice much. If the buyer on the remaining site needs to go through another site approval for whatever reason, the 25 meter tower separation minimum will definitely be an issue.
 
Full Metal Junkie said:
In regards to setbacks, I just went by the site and measured the distance between this building and the one immediately south. I measured balcony railing to balcony railing using the trusted one-meter-step technique and the old eyeball, so the accuracy is probably +/- 20%, but the distance came out to 8.5 meters. That is ridiculously close. So close that you can probably talk to a person on the balcony across without raising your voice much. If the buyer on the remaining site needs to go through another site approval for whatever reason, the 25 meter tower separation minimum will definitely be an issue.
Click to expand...
The minimum required by code is 11m, so it's likely that.

25m only applies to "towers" lower podium levels only require the code based 11m. The city generally prefers 15m, but will accept 11m.
 
Is it 11 meters measured by the footprint though? Would the balcony width not be excluded from the footprint? It looks more like 11 meters between the walls, not the railings.
 
Could the sale be connected to Cityzen's longstanding problems at L Tower, which likely are quite costly to the company?
 
innsertnamehere said:
25m only applies to "towers" lower podium levels only require the code based 11m. The city generally prefers 15m, but will accept 11m.
Click to expand...
Based on my reading, the 25m rule applies to the first 24m in height of a building. Assuming each floor in this building is 11 feet (10 foot ceilings + 1 foot floor) that would mean the first seven floors can have a smaller setback, but then it must be have a 25m setback.

So, if a developer wanted to build taller, the only solution would be if they built a 7 story podium and then any additional height would have to rise from the northern side of that podium.

All this being said, I doubt a developer should, would, or could build taller here. The density is set. As pointed out, they'd need to go through another site plan approval process, and I have a feeling this lot is already zoned to its maximum density. Plus, why would we want a taller building here? It's south of Queens Quay, the buildings should be short. That's been the rule for George Brown (1 and Arbour), Waterfront Innovation Centre, Corus, and the whole Tridel Bayfront development - the only exception to that rule so far has been this Pier 27 Tower and I have a feeling that was only because it was approved long before the others.

condovo said:
Could the sale be connected to Cityzen's longstanding problems at L Tower, which likely are quite costly to the company?
Click to expand...

Could be. Logic would dictate they would only sell if (A) they need cash in the short-term, (B) they cannot develop the land themselves, or (C) they think there's going to be a market crash before they can build it. (B) doesn't make a lot of sense (though perhaps Cityzen feels they just have too many developments. (C) is a wild guess on our part, but doesn't seem likely. So (A) is most likely. Whether they need that cash for obligations in regards to L-Tower or something else would just be a guess though.
 
Hey they're most likely to get more for this parcel of land than they paid for the whole thing without now having to market and build the next phase,
i'd say they are ahead of the game
 
The future building(s) on this land will offer next to no lake view suites that are commanding the highest premium in this strip.
 
Star Fox said:
The density is set. As pointed out, they'd need to go through another site plan approval process, and I have a feeling this lot is already zoned to its maximum density.
Click to expand...
It's another rezoning process that would be required if whoever purchases here wants something that doesn't fit within what's already zoned. All buildings yet to come here will still have to present a Site Plan Application, but that process won't pose a problem re: separation distances.

It's possible that a purchaser will pursue rezoning anyway, one that might go after more height and density, even if it's not much more… or even just to redistribute the allowed density in a taller building with smaller floor plates: greater separation distance could be achieved that way if the City is interested in that.

Finally, it was mentioned above that there is parking under everything already. Not so, but there are underground garages waiting to be expanded: all the ramps heading below ground are already in place.

42
 
Noticed some grey spandrel as well, but not as many as the daniels project.

Was this project approved a long time ago? Noticed they are missing some newer building code requirement (higher ratio of solid wall to window for insulation, bird friendly fritted glass on the lower floors)

20181112_165706.jpg
20181112_165713.jpg
20181112_170007.jpg
20181112_170234.jpg
20181112_170336.jpg
 
The balconies will take care of the bird-friendliness requirements.

42
 
Jowblow333333 said:
The future building(s) on this land will offer next to no lake view suites that are commanding the highest premium in this strip.
Click to expand...
Totally, there will always be a premium attached to waterfront property, it is just the norm across the globe. Outside of investors, there is a segment of end-user buyers interested in the waterfront lifestyle, view or no view. However, I doubt units without a view will have the extra lake-view premium you'll see from the surrounding developments with actual water views.
 
This is such an odd location to live in, waterfront or not, just for olfactory reasons if nothing else. Back in the ye olden days when I was a wee lad trying to put myself through university, I worked as the overnight security guard at the Loblaws store on Queens Quay and Jarvis. We are talking the days when the entire area was an industrial wasteland and the Guvernment night club operation was in full swing. What sticks out in my memory the most about those days spent patrolling the empty parking lots is the smell. Redpath sugar factory smells. I don't mean stinks, I mean it smells of molasses and brown sugar. The smell is not unpleasant, but it is thick and ever-present. They might have implemented some measures these days, because I don't think the smell is as intense as it used to be, but that may just be my sense of smell going out due to the increasing age and overall retardedness. The point is, the sugar smell is still there. Add to that the stench of rotten fish or whatever else the lake periodically smells like. I was cycling past the Sugar Beach wharf last night and got hit with a whiff of something so nasty, that I dry heaved to the point of almost puking. So, to get back to the point of all this, I am not sure that the waterfront premium these properties command is wholly warranted in this particular location.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top