Toronto 55 Yonge | 232.86m | 68s | H&R REIT | PARTISANS
- Thread starter carrythezero
- Start date
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Probably because this isn't being proposed as a condo
Happyman
New Member
Hi! Sorry if this is obvious for some people, but are there actually laws that state that you can't add shade? Or is that just something the city has historically enforced (from lurking I saw that seems to be the case for the 155 meter heights in the entertainment district).
For reference, I'm taking a class on urban economics and I am writing my term paper on the city's density decisions. I have been having trouble finding any documentation backing their decisions behind limiting the shadows for queen street and parks, as well as their height caps in the entertainment district.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
It’s in the Official Plan, so you could call it a law I guess.
entertianment district height never has an actual policy - which is why it was so odd. There was a big LPAT decision a year ago or so where the board member basically told the city to screw off with the limit since they had no policy to support it.
planning rules are always amenable through certain processes, so it’s up to developers to push their luck if they want.
entertianment district height never has an actual policy - which is why it was so odd. There was a big LPAT decision a year ago or so where the board member basically told the city to screw off with the limit since they had no policy to support it.
planning rules are always amenable through certain processes, so it’s up to developers to push their luck if they want.
Happyman
New Member
Thank you so much for the help! If I could ask one more thing, which official plan would you be referring to in this case?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
From the Globe by @AlexBozikovic
/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/tgam/SWPSRDGWAVHPDMZ2PX767MHYJM.JPG)
www.theglobeandmail.com
AoD
A bubble-wrapped tower for Toronto
Yonge Street high-rise by Partisans and BDP Quadrangle aims for ‘true community-building in a vertical context’
www.theglobeandmail.com
AoD
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Official Plan
The Official Plan is intended to ensure that the City of Toronto evolves, improves and realises its full potential in areas such as transit, land use development, and the environment. The most recent official plan consolidation of Chapters 1 to 5 and Schedules 1 to 4 is in effect as of February...
www.toronto.ca
Deadpool X
Senior Member
I wouldn't have my hopes high. I doubt we will get anything close to that. This looks too good to be true.
Dabindigo
New Member
I didn't think they were proposing rental units. Is that correct?
thaivic
Active Member
All the residential units will be rental.
isaidso
Senior Member
Agree. If it were proposed for London, Melbourne, or NYC one could take the rendering seriously. In Toronto, renderings that nice are just fantasy drawings 95% of the time.
I don't know why they bother producing things they have no intention of building. All they do is heighten expectations, disappoint when the actual rendering comes out, and damage their own credibility. You start questioning everything they say or put out. Is it accurate/representative or more deception/dishonesty? Once trust is gone it's hard to get it back.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Preliminary Report on this one is headed to the June 24th meeting of TEYCC.
Report link here:
Note that all Preliminary Reports identify issues where a proposal varies from established policy/rule/guidelines.
This does not automatically mean that Planning is unhappy or unwilling to accommodate. That said, its always noteworthy to see what they are considering.
From the report:
Report link here:
Note that all Preliminary Reports identify issues where a proposal varies from established policy/rule/guidelines.
This does not automatically mean that Planning is unhappy or unwilling to accommodate. That said, its always noteworthy to see what they are considering.
From the report:
Bjays92
Senior Member
I understand that this is just where the proposal varies from the existing guidelines. I have to ask how on earth this building can represent over development of this site given both its location and what's in close proximity to it.
Should the guidelines for the core be changed then?
isaidso
Senior Member
Planners have repeatedly under-estimated growth and demands placed on the city over the last 15 years. The cultural aversion to height has predictably shifted considerably in lock step with development They've had to continually alter guidelines to keep up with new realities.
So yes, I agree 100%. At some point, regulations start holding the city back instead of safeguarding it. Im not suggesting we need to continually accept more height/density but they need to go back to their drawing board. Cases like this that point to the tall building guidelines already being out of date.
If this represents 'overbuilding' there's something wrong with the guidelines, not the proposal.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
A part of the problem here is that the City is directed to follow the population target/forecast issued by the Province.
The province keeps picking a less than realistic scenario.
The province has told the City to plan for 3.7M people in 2051.
Even if growth were slightly less than our record year, pre-pandemic...........we would likely hit that number before 2034. 17 years years 'ahead of schedule'.