217 Adelaide West | 107m | 25s | Humbold Properties | Kirkor Architects

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,493
Reaction score
2,977
Location
South Parkdale
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
 

smably

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
3,189
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.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
10,051
Is it safe to say the developer will scale back their proposal and try again?
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.
 

ILuvTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
306
Reaction score
23
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.

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.

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.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,879
Reaction score
10,051
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.
 

arvelomcquaig

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
467
Reaction score
45
Location
The Annex
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.
 

khristopher

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
8,567
Reaction score
397
Location
Toronto, ON
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.
I feel your pain and completely agree with you. I hope that they do take it to the OMB and win.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,493
Reaction score
2,977
Location
South Parkdale
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.
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
 

P23

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
768
Reaction score
303
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.
 

smably

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
3,189
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.
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?
 

P23

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 7, 2013
Messages
768
Reaction score
303
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?

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?
 

Top