Orson
New Member
WITH bikelanes. (I'm serious)
Toronto Pinnacle One Yonge | 345.5m | 105s | Pinnacle | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Request for Direction report from the June TEYCC:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-93840.pdf
Agenda Item: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.TE17.21
AoD
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-93840.pdf
Agenda Item: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.TE17.21
AoD
Specifically, they are asking that Council send representation to the OMB in support of the reworked proposal.
42
42
ushahid
Senior Member
height "not to exceed 95 floors or 291m" for the tallest tower and "80 floors or 246m" for second tallest. are u kidding me. like seriously.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Those are very high caps. I don't see what your issue is with the line above.
ksun
Senior Member
because many still believing there is a fundamental difference between 291m and 301m...
Honestly, in real life, how many of us can tell the difference with our own eyes? so why the fuss. It is the "I want a supertall" inside screaming.
ushahid
Senior Member
my issue is that the tallest two towers were proposed to be 320m and 260m and they are getting chopped off.
You don't have to worry about that. Those are the roof slab heights, not the height including the mechanical penthouses. The height you and UT cares about will remain 303 metres for the 95-storey tower, and 260 metres for the 80-storey tower.
42
ushahid
Senior Member
ohhh! then its ok 
am29
Active Member
I have a feeling the LCBO lands will produce taller buildings than 1-7 Yonge even though the planners want the skyline to peak at Yonge Street.
Except that we already know that the tallest building being applied for on the LCBO Lands is 85 storeys, 288.5 metres, and we know that that is taller than what the City envisions for that site in the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan.
42
42
am29
Active Member
Yes, but it could still change no? Like how Mirvish + Gehry got taller by elimination 1 tower, and how The One went from 310m to 340m, now down to 300m. I think for LCBO the city will find it too dense and would settle with height increases but eliminate a tower or two.
Well, The One did not get a height reward; it's just been bouncing about.
Mirvish+Gehry, however, did get some special treatment, because it's Frank Gehry. Don't kid yourself otherwise; that fact made a difference.
The City simply won't roll over and let a taller tower than the 7 Yonge one be approved in this area. That's a height they are allowing here based on it being a landmark at the foot of the city's most important street. There's no case to be made for that on the LCBO Lands. East of Yonge, they want the heights to reduce towards Jarvis, and Menkes can expect approvals that fit under that "clothesline". Were they to fight it at the OMB, they likely wouldn't get more than the 80-storey tower on this site.
42
Mirvish+Gehry, however, did get some special treatment, because it's Frank Gehry. Don't kid yourself otherwise; that fact made a difference.
The City simply won't roll over and let a taller tower than the 7 Yonge one be approved in this area. That's a height they are allowing here based on it being a landmark at the foot of the city's most important street. There's no case to be made for that on the LCBO Lands. East of Yonge, they want the heights to reduce towards Jarvis, and Menkes can expect approvals that fit under that "clothesline". Were they to fight it at the OMB, they likely wouldn't get more than the 80-storey tower on this site.
42
ADRM
Senior Member
Height aside, it's really awesome reading through the litany of s. 37 (and related) considerations included in that latest update. I know we knew of the details previously, but it's worth a thumb through to remind oneself the scale of the good that a community (and, really, all of us) can be the recipients of as a result of a development of this magnitude.
Can't wait for this one to work its way through the process (and certainly for additional and/or updated renders).
Can't wait for this one to work its way through the process (and certainly for additional and/or updated renders).
67Cup
Active Member
I know that the land was sold by the province and approvals must come from the city. But presumably it was in the interest of the province to increase their return on the sale by indicating that developers could expect their support in maximizing development on the parcel. No firm promise as to result could be made, of course, only indications of support. Would there have been back channel conversations with the city with respect to what might be permitted there?