marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Especially, like at The Well, when there is a road between their site and the rail corridor. Would they have to deck over Front St as well?
MetroMan
Senior Member
The city owns the air rights. That's already been resolved.
The city already mandates that developers contribute to building parks in a neighbourhood, in almost every case detached or even nowhere near the development. By setting a prerequisite that they build the park themselves, using the construction resources that they're already mobilizing for their building, perhaps this could be in lieu of Section 37 money and perhaps offer the developer programming rights to a portion of the park. In the Well's case, they could have a square for hosting outdoor events for the mall in The Well.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
So we're going to Bespin Cloud City this stuff? It'll all just float there?
Christ man, the degree to which you gloss over the complicated nuance of permissions and construction for some 'greater good' retweet is stunning.
Christ man, the degree to which you gloss over the complicated nuance of permissions and construction for some 'greater good' retweet is stunning.
3Dementia
Senior Member
I'm a fan of BIG but given the "planting" focus (will they live or will they die) I'd prefer to see a larger mix in the volumes, including one tallish statement to the left (or right) of the building. So if the plants die, we have a more interesting monolith.
condovo
Senior Member
^^^I agree that this thing needs to be broken down and better articulated.
RickyBobby
Active Member
Also, the City doesnt own any air rights in tje rail corridor. CN/TTR do above 9M and Metrolinx does below 9M. And they have their own stuff going on ... like a 10 year electrification plan!
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Imagine if some private developer built a rail deck park that totally messed up electrification ?
Northern Light
Superstar
To be fair, last I saw, that was in question; its true TTR/CN didn't sell 'air rights' to Metrolinx; but what is less clear is whether they had any rights under their initial grant for them.
The City does have control of the zoning over the tracks though; and that is rather meaningful leverage, regardless.
To split the difference here, it's neither as easy as some make it out; nor as challenging as some others fear.
isaidso
Senior Member
Which suggests that we/they should be negotiating for them, section by section, before these proposals move forward. It's no point coming to this realization after the fact but I suppose that's precisely what we'll do. Admittedly it's a very difficult thing to accomplish but are they even trying? I suspect not.
RickyBobby
Active Member
According to Novae Reus this was narrowly supported at DRP, 4-3 with the chair having to break the deadlock. Planning was generally not supportive because of the incremental shadow and that this would be the widest building in the entire downtown core. No details on the conditions of approval. Worthwhile to note that "non-support" means a "recommendation for complete redesign," and support does not necessarily mean substantial change will not be required.
The DRP cannot require change. It can only suggest it. Planning can elect to take up some of the points the DRP makes in their talks with the developer, if there is some negotiating to be done… but since this was supported by the DRP, then Planning won't have too much sway with their agenda. In the end, if the final version of the building proposal conforms to the various prescriptions of the Tall Buildings Guidelines, then it will either pass at Council or at LPAT whether Planning likes the width or not.
42
42
RickyBobby
Active Member
Question: legally, does the City NEED to approve increasing density? Does someone have the RIGHT to rezone?
Current zoning for most sites in the city is considered obsolete, 99% of it having not been up-zoned after the provincial government brought in the Places To Grow Act in 2005, which requires municipalities to generally densify. This is why most developers ask for and get zoning bylaw amendments, whether from Council, or from the OMB/LPAT. As long as the proponent can argue that their development conforms to various other restrictions on new buildings, such as area plans, or the Tall Buildings Guidelines that I mentioned earlier, and that their proposal also conforms to the policies laid out in Places To Grow, they will get approved. The City does not have the right to withhold rezoning for development proposals that can be shown to adhere to growth limits and policies.
42
42
NeilV
Active Member
Incremental shadow on what? There is no sacred parkland for miles from this site. Is 160 Front now protected from shadow impacts too? I mean, I'm glad that shadows don't seem to be a deal-breaker, but I'm appalled that it's even mentioned.
RickyBobby
Active Member
Based on the shadow study I would say Davis Pecault Square which is protected in TOCore and Bill 108.