Automation Gallery said:
Lol..unbelievable that a 5 storey/10 meter chop would make that much difference:D

Height
The July 16, 2014 Request for Direction staff report states that the initial 50-storey
building is too tall in the context and should be more reflective of its surrounding context.
The latest revisions propose a 45-storey tower with a height of 142 metres (154 metres
including mechanical elements). The revised building height is more appropriate with
respect to the existing and planned context of the area which is on a site that is not within
the Financial District.
Click to expand...

Actually it deals with almost all the excess shadows over neighbouring buildings and streets over and above the 'as of right' 25 floors on the site.
 
DSC said:
Actually it deals with almost all the excess shadows over neighbouring buildings and streets over and above the 'as of right 25 floors on the site.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Great Gulf will still build 45 floors on a... 'as of right 25 floors for the site'
Is it all about money ($3.000.000.00), in this city:confused:
 
Automation Gallery said:
Yeah, but Great Gulf will still build 45 floors on a... 'as of right 25 floors for the site'
Is it all about money ($3.000.000.00), in this city:confused:
Click to expand...

it is also shocking that Victoria/Richmond is allowed to have 25 floors? This location is practically IN the CBD.
 
Everything goes beyond as of right these days; it's par for the course, it's expected. Local ratepayer groups pretend that anything beyond as of right is developer greed and overdevelopment, but in fact it's practically mandated by the Ontario Government post-Greenbelt and the Places to Grow Act.

What is not de rigueur is that the developer will get exactly the floor count that they are asking for beyond as of right. It is details like the shadows that the building will cast and all sorts of other measures that go into what the City will say yes to.

While many UT members fetishize height and floor count no matter where a building is proposed, the City is looking at the local context of every proposal to make their determination.

42
 
Last edited:
ksun said:
it is also shocking that Victoria/Richmond is allowed to have 25 floors? This location is practically IN the CBD.
Click to expand...

It's not shocking if you know that the by-laws are out-of-date citywide. See my other response above.

42
 
What exactly would be shadowed here by a 50 story building that isn't already shadowed by the multiple 25 story buildings that surround this site. Absolutely crazy that this isn't one of the unlimited height zones in the city as it is one block off Yonge and 2 blocks of King. If anything the current buildings should be bulldozed and taller higher density should be zoned here.
 
Register123 said:
What exactly would be shadowed here by a 50 story building that isn't already shadowed by the multiple 25 story buildings that surround this site. Absolutely crazy that this isn't one of the unlimited height zones in the city as it is one block off Yonge and 2 blocks of King. If anything the current buildings should be bulldozed and taller higher density should be zoned here.
Click to expand...

There is a 7 story Green Park garage on the other side of Richmond - that should be demolished and redeveloped.
I am of the opinions that the CBD should expand toward this direction (NE), instead of South. There is so much potential office space within a few minutes walk to the east of Queen and King station, yet most buildings there are below 5 or 6 stories.
 
So from 50 storeys/165 metres to 46 storeys/154 metres. Apparently planning staff were of the opinion that the tower was too tall. Personally the notion that slicing 11 metres of a skyscraper in the downtown core takes it from being too tall to OK is absurd. Sure smells like a token cut to me.
 
I believe the height difference was to fit into the (silly) skyline tapering policy which the planning department is still holding on to dear life for.

The 46 storeys quoted above includes the mechanical. Ever since the City and Great Gulf reached agreement on this building, the thread title has reflected the 45 storeys settled upon (without the mechanical included).

42
 
interchange42 said:
I believe the height difference was to fit into the (silly) skyline tapering policy which the planning department is still holding on to dear life for.

The 46 storeys quoted above includes the mechanical. Ever since the City and Great Gulf reached agreement on this building, the thread title has reflected the 45 storeys settled upon (without the mechanical included).

42
Click to expand...

I wonder if shadowing the forecourt at MUC was a consideration. I don't mind the skyline tapering policy at all. It's exceptional from a management perspective and leads to a much more pleasing skyline than the alternative table top. It's certainly not silly by any means.
 
Yes, it's possible that shadowing on Metropolitan United's park space was a concern.

It's high time to let the tapering policy go. We are building outwards from the core, in places that can support the density, that should not have to kowtow to First Canadian Place's assumed eternal preeminence.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top