Toronto 1910 Eglinton Avenue East | 133.25m | 40s | Yorkreal Holdings | Turner Fleischer

Big sigh of relief there! Tall buildings and parks just don't mix!!

1622724157908.png
 
ProjectEnd said:
Big sigh of relief there! Tall buildings and parks just don't mix!!

View attachment 324789
Click to expand...

You're being silly PE.

The park below is 1,000 acres; if Hakimi Park is made 1,000 acres noone will be complaining about shadowing.

Of course, that would erase more housing than is in dispute here.

It may well be that the shadowing issue is overplayed in this case, I have yet to examine the details.
 
In a choice between "New Shadows -vs- New Housing" --- you know where we stand... :cool:


1622726539294.png
 
I will say that Madison Square Park (and I’m assuming that’s the second photo) is one my favorite parks in NYC. Such a great example of an urban park, and how to use space effectively. The way the paths are laid out - you can do quite a few different walking loops. And besides, the mix of uses: from the playground to Shake Shack, to lawns and the on-site art…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: NYC designs parks more effectively than Toronto.
 
Personally, shadowing doesn't affect my enjoyment of parks, big or small. I don't hang out in parks in the winter. In the summer, I do but always seek out the shade. I realize some people don't like shade but why are we setting policy based on the preferences of one group over another? It's not like the entire park will be in shade. Some of it will and some of it won't. By extension, if there are sunny bits and shady bits it will be a park that everyone can enjoy.

Current shadow policies are very one sided. They cater to one segment of the population while ignoring the preferences of everyone else.
 
While I'm content to disagree with others in respect of shadowing's potential impact.

Having looked up the numbers in the Planning Rationale Report...........

I don't see why they would be a material issue here:

1622748498674.png


Hmmm; I don't see a free-standing shadow study, which I would like to; as that typically shows the impact of other existing and proposed buildings.

But I don't see it listed in the supporting Docs.

Still..........doesn't seem like a deal-breaker here to me.

****

Found the images for shadowing buried in the architectural plans:

1622748885356.png


Taken in isolation, this doesn't look like a problem.

There wouldn't be any building directly to the south; though at some point there will be one across Eglinton.

The difficulty here is that we can't see how this shadow interacts w/the others.
 
Meh... much better than the previous one, but still nothing special. Tower isn't terrible, but the podium just doesn't create an urban environment.
 
Like the tower's slightly punctured windows and pushed in balconies! It's simple but affected as seen in the photos up.
 
New renderings are updated in the database! The overall project information is updated. The total building storey count changed from 34 storeys to 40 storeys. The total unit count increased from 338 units to 387 units. Additionally, the total building height increased from 115.35m to 133.25m. Finally, the total parking spaces increased slightly from 186 parking spaces to 187 parking spaces.

The renderings are taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning Application:

PLN - Architectural Plans - APR 25 2022-4.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - APR 25 2022-51.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - APR 25 2022-55.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - APR 25 2022-57.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - APR 25 2022-59.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top