Toronto Windsor House Condos | 27.65m | 7s | ONE Properties | Turner Fleischer

animatronic said:
6 storeys works well for Paris - streets feel built up but not overwhelming. You could add 1,000 units on that stretch of bloor without exceeding 6 floors - and there's little of architectural relevance to prevent higher density.

Not being facetious here - would you support a 20 storey tower on the site? 40? At what point do you draw the line on appropriate height for Bloor St, and what's the test you'd use to pick your limit?
Click to expand...

I would.
 
animatronic said:
6 storeys works well for Paris - streets feel built up but not overwhelming. You could add 1,000 units on that stretch of bloor without exceeding 6 floors - and there's little of architectural relevance to prevent higher density.

Not being facetious here - would you support a 20 storey tower on the site? 40? At what point do you draw the line on appropriate height for Bloor St, and what's the test you'd use to pick your limit?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, a good lot of Paris' 6-storey buildings wouldn't be buildable in Toronto because they run afoul of Planning's other sacrosanct building guidelines.

I take your point on the building heights -- any limit, whether 6 or 66, is going to be somewhat arbitrary taken on the fact of the height alone (there are other considerations that should come into play with increased density, such as servicing and infrastructure requirements just to name a couple). But to answer the questions directly: no, I don't have the perfect rubric for evaluating appropriate heights; nonetheless, yes, I am fully confident that 6 on one of our two subway lines is absolutely too low, and sure, I don't see any good, unemotional reason why 20 is inappropriate here.

What I will say, though, is that some other of Planning's stipulations have the effect of making taller towers less desirable insofar as they limit the types of tall towers that can be constructed (thinking here of limits with respect to separation distances, an insistence on the podium-and-point tower typology, and a whack of others).

I think, broadly, the obsession about building height among Planning, most councillors, and many of this city's residents significantly hinders the conversation about what concrete steps could be taken to build better buildings in the city. In practice, give me a tall, skinny, attractive 26-storey tower that's set way back on a lot line and is engaging at grade over a fat, squat, ugly, lifeless mid-rise with crappy materials and a straight two-storey-high wall of glass any day of the week. Our current regime prefers the latter to the former.
 
Safe to say the setbacks aren't significant enough on the south side. The height of the tower is more than reasonable to me for this area, but they need greater setbacks to the south (residential side).
 
Can these developers now raise good planning arguments at the LPAT board because of Bill 108? Or do they not fall under those new/old rules?

Fieldgate's United Kingsway Condos down the street would have won their appeal at the LPAT had they been allowed to argue good planning, instead of only challenging based on intensification arguments
 
00-IMG_E5453.jpg
flatiron.jpg
westedmontonmallresized.jpg
4egvdfbv.JPG


 
It's too bad they didnt finish strong with the top floor/mech level. They were so close to a decently executed project too.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top