Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread  I  Real Estate Thread
64 Prince Arthur 
64 Prince Arthur Avenue, Toronto
Developer: Adi Development Group

64 Prince Arthur | 130m | 29s | Adi | CetraRuddy

Discussion in 'Buildings' started by Southcore, May 27, 2016.

  1. Southcore

    Southcore Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    549
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    Southcore

  2. urbandreamer

    urbandreamer recession proof

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,557
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    renderpornstar.com
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    #2
  3. smably

    smably Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    670
    Likes Received:
    983
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2017
    #3
  4. ProjectEnd

    ProjectEnd Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    6,662
    Likes Received:
    2,312
    Adi has had at least three architects look at this site, Cetra being the most-recent. This is not the Cetra iteration.
     
    #4
    ADRM, interchange42 and smably like this.
  5. urbandreamer

    urbandreamer recession proof

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    14,557
    Likes Received:
    388
    Location:
    renderpornstar.com
    I believe this latest version was linked to Core Architect's pinterest.
     
    #5
  6. LMVDR

    LMVDR New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    7
    You simply cannot put a tall building here. There is a busy park and open greenspace immediately to the north. It would shadow it completely.

    This should be thrown out ab initio.
     
    #6
  7. interchange42

    interchange42 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    18,768
    Likes Received:
    8,153
    Location:
    by the Humber
    There's a 19-storey building next door to this which has been there since 1968, and which would have greater shadow impact on Taddle Creek Park. Good luck lawyering up to fight a similarly tall one here.

    42
     
    #7
    greenleaf and ADRM like this.
  8. ADRM

    ADRM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,053
    That's what the shadowing study is for, and there are tall buildings on both sides of this site, one of which already almost completely shadows the park, at least at whatever time of day and year this image was taken:

    shadow.PNG
     
    #8
    interchange42 and someMidTowner like this.
  9. LMVDR

    LMVDR New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    7
    Of course there's already shadowing. The issue is incremental shadow and when that occurs.

    I'm suggesting that any proposal here should not be permitted at all if it creates any incremental shadowing. There is precious little greenspace in this area to begin with. Creating more shadows should not be tolerated.
     
    #9
  10. ADRM

    ADRM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,053
    Surely, as with anything, it will (and should) come down to a matter of degree; "incremental" in this case would mean very different things to different people. But I think setting the limit at any incrementalism is far too declarative.
     
    #10
    GeneralGrievance likes this.
  11. LMVDR

    LMVDR New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    7
    I beg to differ. If this developer cannot design a building that does not add additional shadowing of any kind on this scarce community resource, ie Taddle Creek park, the proposal should be refused.

    It's really not asking for much now is it?
     
    #11
  12. ADRM

    ADRM Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2015
    Messages:
    2,406
    Likes Received:
    4,053
    I think rejecting a proposal out of hand for adding 6 inches of shadow for 6 minutes of the 6th day of the 6th month of the year is asking for too much, yes.
     
    #12
    smably, Ottawan and interchange42 like this.
  13. AlvinofDiaspar

    AlvinofDiaspar Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    21,881
    Likes Received:
    6,517
    Location:
    Toronto
  14. Downtown Toronto

    Downtown Toronto New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    53
    Likes Received:
    39
    Your logic and way of thinking is ridiculous, nimbyism at its best, I'll leave it at that.
     
    #14
  15. LMVDR

    LMVDR New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2017
    Messages:
    46
    Likes Received:
    7
    Concern over shadows in a parkland/open space deficient neighbourhood is not nimbyism. Maybe you should look up the definition.
     
    #15

Share This Page