Toronto 36 Eglinton West | 199.99m | 59s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

January 16th, 2021

1610921443332.png
 
Automation Gallery said:
Haha, this is all 'water under the bridge,
..now that they are planning 270 meters across the street this will all change the approval process
Click to expand...

I know you like to make silly comments; but the rest of us really wish you would not.

Separation distance minimums will not be affected by what's proposed on the Canada Square lands;

Nor does it alter the absence of a functional servicing report.;

Nor does it alter the failure to replace the on-site office space;

Nor does alter the need to address step-backs;

Nor does it alter the need to address shadowing on the only large park in the area.

****

Come on now.
 
Undead said:
lol bruh that's why the other dude called you a gatekeeper 😂
Click to expand...

I'm not reporting him; nor asking him to be banned. I'm asking him to offer intelligent, well thought out, evidence based posts.

If that's gate-keeping, so be it, I'll own it.

I only have one lifetime and I don't want other people causing any of it to be wasted.

He made a nonsense post.

It's not his first, or fiftieth.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm not reporting him; nor asking him to be banned. I'm asking him to offer intelligent, well thought out, evidence based posts.

If that's gate-keeping, so be it, I'll own it.

I only have one lifetime and I don't want other people causing any of it to be wasted.

He made a nonsense post.

It's not his first, or fiftieth.
Click to expand...
It's far from being a nonsense post, most refusal .reports get eventually approved and built with a tweak here and a tweak there to it's original plan,
..it's just that money talks and bullshit walks by time the developers and City settle their differences ...who you kidding?
 
Both of you have valid points though. The development of canada square next door will affect the heights this can be approved to making more height here more likely.

Likewise the developer will certainly still have to compromise to alleviate some of the other concerns like setbacks and shadowing.

I'd imagine there will be a significant redesign by the developer before this gets built but that doesnt mean significantly shorter.
 
Last edited:
Bjays92 said:
Both of you have valid point though. The development of canada square next door will affect the heights this can be approved to making more height here more likely.

Likewise the developer will certainly still have to compromise to alleviate some of the other concerns like setbacks and shadowing.

I'd imagine there will be a significant redesign by the developer before this gets built but that doesnt mean significantly shorter.
Click to expand...

I would agree; but for one thing.........

Have a look at the extent of the separation distance problem:

1613430302864.png


At higher levels the guideline is for 25M.

Look what's left of the site to build on, if you separate it from the tower to the east by 25M.

Even at 12.5M, you have a real problem:

1613430410097.png


What that means is that with zero setbacks, and a rather unlikely (low) separation distance, you've got a floor plate of ~8700ft2

That's viable.........but not by so much.

But once you put in full separation distances......

Assuming no additional separation from the north; you're looking at ~4,200ft2

That's without any street-level setbacks.

It's not that it's impossible to make something work on this site; I can see a pencil tower.

The challenge is that this proposal is so far from workable; I think even LPAT would be unlikely to go for it.

*****

I can't see this proposal going forward in anything like its current form.

LPAT could prove me wrong, of course.............
 
I don't understand why the applicant didn't come in with an OPA here in the first place. The failure to provide full replacement office as required by OPA 405 would have been fatal to the application from the outset. I'm sure there's some strategy to it given the sophisticated actors involved - hard to imagine that they just got bad planning advice...
 
saynotofaux said:
I don't understand why the applicant didn't come in with an OPA here in the first place. The failure to provide full replacement office as required by OPA 405 would have been fatal to the application from the outset. I'm sure there's some strategy to it given the sophisticated actors involved - hard to imagine that they just got bad planning advice...
Click to expand...

*Docs are up*

And the Cover Letter says this about the OPA:

1636497365576.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top