News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 502     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 701     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 516     0 

1 St. Clair East (Slate, 10s, Gensler)

AlvinofDiaspar

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
33,166
Reaction score
28,611
Location
Toronto
Last edited:
Judging by the outcry for the tower next door, I'm sure the neighbourhood will be pretty upset about the proposal when it comes to the table. But they (and Councillor Matlow) need to get over themselves. This is right on a subway station that interchanges with a streetcar on its own right-of-way. Height and density should be encouraged here.
 
The planning docs are up on the dev app site (see initial link). It's basically a block planning exercise:

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ap-management-wallman-architects.21108/page-3

From the Planning Rationale report:

upload_2017-3-29_22-2-38.png


upload_2017-3-29_22-3-39.png


upload_2017-3-29_22-3-49.png


upload_2017-3-29_22-4-7.png




AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-3-29_22-2-38.png
    upload_2017-3-29_22-2-38.png
    135.6 KB · Views: 1,980
  • upload_2017-3-29_22-3-39.png
    upload_2017-3-29_22-3-39.png
    399.4 KB · Views: 1,972
  • upload_2017-3-29_22-3-49.png
    upload_2017-3-29_22-3-49.png
    376.4 KB · Views: 1,980
  • upload_2017-3-29_22-4-7.png
    upload_2017-3-29_22-4-7.png
    426 KB · Views: 2,258
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
New entry in Dev App - OPA

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...ion=init&folderRsn=4126755&isCofASearch=false

Proposal to amend Official Plan for 1 St. Clair Avenue East. Proposal includes 1407-1431 Yonge Street.

UT article with mention of the site (not sure if it has since changed):

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/06/yonge-st-clair-developer-hopes-revitalize-midtown-hub

AoD
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the link to the development application. An interesting read.

Does anyone on this forum have an opinion on whether this filing was primarily intended as an intervention of sorts in the upcoming OMB hearing for 1421 (Terracap)?
It doesn't sound like Slate has any intention to build soon, but they clearly don't want their future options limited by the 1421 development.
My guess would be that this proposal makes the OMB hearing much less likely to go Terracap's way.
 
Brother Jonathan said:
Thanks for posting the link to the development application. An interesting read.

Does anyone on this forum have an opinion on whether this filing was primarily intended as an intervention of sorts in the upcoming OMB hearing for 1421 (Terracap)?
It doesn't sound like Slate has any intention to build soon, but they clearly don't want their future options limited by the 1421 development.
My guess would be that this proposal makes the OMB hearing much less likely to go Terracap's way.
Click to expand...

Sounds correct - see my edited post above - and even better, read the planning rationale report from which the sections I drawn from!

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
See my edited post above - and even better, read the planning rationale report from which the sections I drawn from!

AoD
Click to expand...
Way ahead of you (although I hadn't seen your edited post. Apologies for that.)
My interpretation of the planning rationale is that Slate does not want 1421 to be built as proposed, and hopes to torpedo its chances at the OMB.
I guess I'm mainly curious how this gets viewed (a) by the Board and (b) by Terracap.
(Posting reply, hoping you haven't edited your post again)
 
Brother Jonathan said:
Way ahead of you (although I hadn't seen your edited post. Apologies for that.)
My interpretation of the planning rationale is that Slate does not want 1421 to be built as proposed, and hopes to torpedo its chances at the OMB.
I guess I'm mainly curious how this gets viewed (a) by the Board and (b) by Terracap.
(Posting reply, hoping you haven't edited your post again)
Click to expand...

Basically yeah, because as proposed the project left a 10m separation from this site for any potential tower. Maybe they'd sort something out?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
View attachment 103499
Click to expand...
Brother Jonathan said:
Does anyone on this forum have an opinion on whether this filing was primarily intended as an intervention of sorts in the upcoming OMB hearing for 1421 (Terracap)?
It doesn't sound like Slate has any intention to build soon, but they clearly don't want their future options limited by the 1421 development.
My guess would be that this proposal makes the OMB hearing much less likely to go Terracap's way.
Click to expand...

"The tallest building element will be at the Yonge Street and St. Clair Avenue intersection"

Translation: Ours is going to be taller than theirs. This is a huge 'f*** off' to Terracap IMO. This changes the planning context entirely, 1421 would now have to step down from whatever maximum height is established for the corner, if this OPA goes through, and which intuitively makes sense.

There is no other reason Slate in encompassing 1421 in this, there's no reason they would do Terracap a favour.
 
Brother Jonathan said:
Way ahead of you (although I hadn't seen your edited post. Apologies for that.)
My interpretation of the planning rationale is that Slate does not want 1421 to be built as proposed, and hopes to torpedo its chances at the OMB.
Click to expand...
This is exactly the point of the filing, and not a hidden motive. We published this story earlier today stating so.
Brother Jonathan said:
I guess I'm mainly curious how this gets viewed (a) by the Board and (b) by Terracap.
(Posting reply, hoping you haven't edited your post again)
Click to expand...
Terracap will want anything that gets them permission for a tower, which is something they do not currently have. The Board won't be saying "Aww, too bad Slate, I saw Terracap put their hand up first!", they'll consider the actual planning question posed. This is a similar situation to what happened recently at Jarvis and Dundas where Amexon successfully argued that the CentreCourt plan north of them would prevent Amexon from redeveloping their Grand Hotel site.

42
 
There's always been something not-quite-right about 1 St. Clair E--perhaps through being too small, or too clumsy in its carved-out subway connection, or just some kind of awkwardly aging 1980-ness of being with its bulging base and diagonal-slicing and "treated" metal finish; for it to be deemed expendable now is not all that surprising...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top