Toronto 217 Adelaide West | 103.5m | 23s | Humbold Properties | Adamson

Scale back why? is this not right behind the future 250-300m Mirvish towers,
.... hahaha:D, dont tell me they are still keeping the 157m height limit throught the whole area, i guess there will be about 10 of the new proposals to be scaled back
 
The issue isn't even primarily the height -- it's that the lot is just too small to maintain the required separation between a tower here and towers on adjacent properties. As stated in the planning report, staff believe the only acceptable development on this lot would be a mid-rise, which would not be subject to lot line setbacks.

My guess is this property gets sold and consolidated into one of the neighbouring properties. Honestly I can't see this succeeding even at the OMB, given the number of issues flagged in the report. (For example, any significant density would require above-ground parking given how small the lot is, meaning no space for ground-level retail and blank walls facing the street.) Somebody definitely didn't do their homework on this proposal.
 
ILuvTO said:
Is it safe to say the developer will scale back their proposal and try again?
Click to expand...
its not the height that is an issue, the developer simply does not have enough land to fit a tower. They need more separation distance from adjacent properties.
 
smably said:
The issue isn't even primarily the height -- it's that the lot is just too small to maintain the required separation between a tower here and towers on adjacent properties. As stated in the planning report, staff believe the only acceptable development on this lot would be a mid-rise, which would not be subject to lot line setbacks.

My guess is this property gets sold and consolidated into one of the neighbouring properties. Honestly I can't see this succeeding even at the OMB, given the number of issues flagged in the report. (For example, any significant density would require above-ground parking given how small the lot is, meaning no space for ground-level retail and blank walls facing the street.) Somebody definitely didn't do their homework on this proposal.
Click to expand...

innsertnamehere said:
its not the height that is an issue, the developer simply does not have enough land to fit a tower. They need more separation distance from adjacent properties.
Click to expand...

Thanks to both of you for the replies. Appreciate it. :)

What would constitute a mid-rise building that would fit on that site? Something with a max of 30 floors?

Reason I ask... I am looking at units in Theatre Park and trying to figure out if the north facing views will eventually get blocked with another huge tower. This project as originally proposed looks like it would have.
 
midrise is defined as under 12 floors.

As Smalby said however, what I think is more likely is that this plot will get sold off to an adjacent owner and get integrated into their project, especially since Allied is already developing a rental tower next door.
 
Ugh; so ridiculous. The City should be requiring that there not be wasteful gaps between buildings, not the opposite. And if parking is an issue, simple: no parking.

This is one of the most interesting proposals I’ve ever seen, and so beautifully/efficiently dense. I hope this (somehow) survives our ridiculous rules.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Ugh; so ridiculous. The City should be requiring that there not be wasteful gaps between buildings, not the opposite. And if parking is an issue, simple: no parking.

This is one of the most interesting proposals I’ve ever seen, and so beautifully/efficiently dense. I hope this (somehow) survives our ridiculous rules.
Click to expand...
I feel your pain and completely agree with you. I hope that they do take it to the OMB and win.
 
innsertnamehere said:
its not the height that is an issue, the developer simply does not have enough land to fit a tower. They need more separation distance from adjacent properties.
Click to expand...
But it is also...all about the height, unbelievable:eek:

Height Due to the limited opportunity to provide adequate tower separation distances, a tall building of any height is considered too tall for the subject site. However, even if there were adequate tower separation distances, there are general concerns with the proposed height of close to 180 metres. The emerging planning analysis coming out of the KingSpadina East Precinct Built Form Study is that heights should follow a downward gradation moving east to west from University Avenue towards Spadina Avenue and that they generally should be no taller than the TIFF Bell Lightbox building at 157 metres. The proposal exceeds this by a little over 20 metres. More importantly, there is also an expectation that, the taller the building, the greater the tower separation distances required above the minimum 25 metre requirement.
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-85125.pdf
 
There are supertalls being built in New York on lots that aren't much larger. I'm not fond of the building separation guidelines, they're very silly.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Ugh; so ridiculous. The City should be requiring that there not be wasteful gaps between buildings, not the opposite. And if parking is an issue, simple: no parking.
Click to expand...
I agree that this building needn't have much (or any) parking, but the minimum separation between towers seems like sound policy to me. This tower was proposed to come within one metre of the lot line on the west side of the property and actually had no setback at all on the east side. What if one of the owners of the adjacent lots also wanted to build right up to the lot line? Something has to give. You can quibble about the amount of separation required, but surely some separation is necessary. So is 25 metres too much? What would be a better number?
 
smably said:
I agree that this building needn't have much (or any) parking, but the minimum separation between towers seems like sound policy to me. This tower was proposed to come within one metre of the lot line on the west side of the property and actually had no setback at all on the east side. What if one of the owners of the adjacent lots also wanted to build right up to the lot line? Something has to give. You can quibble about the amount of separation required, but surely some separation is necessary. So is 25 metres too much? What would be a better number?
Click to expand...

So? Hundreds of buildings are already wall to wall throughout the city. I don't see how their height changes anything. If there are no windows or balconies on the sides then what harm is it?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top