Parkdalian
Senior Member
This is great news! Bienvenue a Toronto, S&P!
Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte
- Thread starter SpadinaBus
- Start date
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Strange...because its even shorter than what you predicted..i get that feeling that you dont like anything tall in your area. Oh my, its going to be one sad day for you when the OMB approves that big hi-rise project at the corner of Bathurst and Front.
gristle
Senior Member
It's approximately 40 metres at the roof line, but taller when taking the mechanical box into consideration. It will be 40 metres straight up off King street where as the secondary plan calls for set backs to allow light to hit King Street during the day. The developer was being asked to respect the plan and step back the floors above 28 metres. The secondary plan imposes a height limit in order to protect the character of the neighbourhood. That character is at very high risk of being destroyed by this approach to development.
A sad day for me? Actually, a sad day for the city. What you obviously don't comprehend is that the city plan is being destroyed by the OMB. The secondary plan for the area is now wrecked because the OMB ruled on opinions regarding architectural merit and not on whether this building made any sense with respect to the context of the neighbourhood. It rejected the the views of the democratically elected city councillor, it rejected the recommendations of the city planning department, rejected the city plan and rejected the concerns of the local residents who expressed concerns about this project. What you don't understand - or could not care less about - is that the city plan was passed by city council through a democratic process. The OMB appointee - who is most definitely not an expert in city planning or in architecture - exceeded that process. He wasn't elected, but his own personal opinion ends up mattering more than anything or anyone else. That's a ludicrous approach to city building.
It appears that too many people get wrapped up in a skyscraper fetish that they lose the bigger picture - that the developers are getting the sole say on how the city evolves. And as a resident of that neighbourhood, I happen to dislike that a lone provincial appointee can have so much power so as to undermine the city planning efforts of the most populace city in Canada. Ontario is the only jurisdiction in North America that maintains such a body, and it is a detriment to the city. It's definitely not planning.
Last edited:
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I really wonder, are we doomed in this city to live either in urban neighbourhoods with high-rises or suburban neighbourhoods with sprawling low-rises? Is there any room for urban neighbourhoods with dense low and mid-rise buildings? The most vibrant neighbourhoods in the city have always been made of low and mid-rise buildings packed closely together around transit lines (Queen West, Annex, Little Italy, Leslieville, Cabbagetown, etc). It seems like every time a neighbourhood becomes vibrant these days it's used as an excuse to start increasing the height of buildings with no thought to maintaining the built form of the neighbourhood that made it so popular in the first place. I may be in a minority here, but I actually like our neighbourhoods BETTER than Manhattan.
Ramako
Moderator
Is 12 storeys not midrise?
CN Tower
Banned
Looks like the character of the area is destroying itself:
http://www.torontolife.com/daily/in...s-drunken-bachelorettes-and-last-call-brawls/
Jersey Shore St. West anyone?
Again I disagree. Strongly. It is very hard for an urban loving person to argue that the 20,000+ new condo units sprouting across the city every year, the escalating but steady increases in property values, the enormous employment for the greater real estate industry, to say nothing of the handful of really unique and landmark architectural displays, is 'a detriment to the city'. No, in fact I believe that we can safely say that the OMB's influence on development in this town has overall been an enormous benefit.
King West was bound to douche bag itself down eventually. With all the wanna-be hipness being promoted in the development it was only a matter of time before the inevitable cycle of trendiness took a turn down.
gristle
Senior Member
It might come as a massive shock to you, but just because people live in King West doesn't mean they are all automatically like the people depicted in this article. Also, the piece you reference does not relate in any way to the development in question or the problem of the OMB having final say over city planning. The allusion that the residents of the area are somehow all "douchebags" because of the idiotic excesses in club activities of the area goes a long way to undermining any possible minor point that you had hoped to make here.
Good to see that you like and support the idea of a dictatorial body that came into existence in 1897 in order to supervise railways between municipalities - a body that now has final say over things including zoning by-laws, development charges, land compensation, minor variances, ward boundaries, aggregate resources, the official plans of cities and a whole range of other matters. The OMB has been a determined detriment to developing a mature planning process in this city. It's overturning of CofA rulings and city planning recommendations results in a waste of time and money as the city has to allocate thousands of staff hours each year to defending itself in front of this body. The OMB can even overrule elected municipal councils and substitute its own decision - which it has done so on many occasions throughout its history. Further to all of this, the OMB has generated and perpetuated an a adversarial process between all parties, and has spawned an expensive industry of development lawyers and experts-for-higher that the city cannot hope to match in terms of dollars spent every time a developer is told that their project does not conform to the city plan. Moreover, the decisions made by the OMB adjudicator are subjective and not made on the basis of sound planning, economic viability or expertise regarding urban design or architectural merit. Yet you see this activity as being valuable and beneficial to the city. I can only assume you know nothing about this body, or collect a paycheque from it.
Last edited:
yyzer
Senior Member
Well, I certainly have no connection with the OMB, but am thankful that we have it - otherwise, pigheaded local politics would stifle all growth in the city.....
12 storeys is hardly excessive in this case...
12 storeys is hardly excessive in this case...
gristle
Senior Member
You are making what amounts to a silly and massive generalization. How would you explain the reason why a city plan exists along with secondary plans? Those are generated by the city. How do you explain the development efforts that proceed without going to the OMB? What is wrong with a city-based development process and something like a design review panel that would take the place of the OMB once and for all? Why would you oppose decisions that are city-made, and made for the benefit and needs of the city? The OMB does not do that at all.
You have sided with a body that does not ever have to answer to the people - at all. The local politicians do have to answer the people.
As for the twelve stories, you don't know he building and don't understand the Secondary Plan for the area. That is fully evident by your focus solely on the number of floors.
yyzer
Senior Member
Why do the shrillest voices always have the least amount to say? eh gristle? and don't presume to tell me what I understand or don't understand.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Seems to fall under the regs for the general outline of the official plan at least for our avenues and streets. I see nothing offensive about 12 stories in this area. Seems about average and if done right looks damn nice!!
Also nothing wrong with a design review panal at all, and it should be encouraged to be used more. planniong and proposal decisions can be affected by nimbyism, and other nbhd groups instead of following the general growth plan for the city. This is why sometimes it is useful to have a appeal process available such as the OMB. I would have to side with yyzer on this one, as city politics and councillors only looking out for the short term populist views in their nbhd, instead of what is better for our growth directives in the long term. 12 storeys here seems fine to me, but then im not the city or the OMB, and either way, thats what the hearings are for. THe OMB knows very well the official plans and growth strategies for the city, and part of that would be intensifying on major avenues and streets that have sufficient transportation to carry the growth as well as based on existing improvements on the street. (improvements meaning existing buildings)
Last edited:
urbandreamer
recession proof
Reading the OMB decision the city comes across as amateurish and wasting tax payers money. Hundred pages+ reports and they don't even include a rendering(A photograph taken from the CN Tower--Jasonzed's from UT would suffice!) showing today's reality==ie current buildings nearby going up that exceed the height limit; they include a guy opposed to this development who it turns out bought at 400 Wellington west--another OMB-approved building! Hilariously incompetent, as usual...!
For a good laugh, waste 5 minutes of your life by reading the amusing tales of gravy train wasteful spending here: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl101140-feb-16-2011.pdf
For a good laugh, waste 5 minutes of your life by reading the amusing tales of gravy train wasteful spending here: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl101140-feb-16-2011.pdf
Last edited:
SpadinaBus
Active Member
Actually, Gristile is right here and it doesn't appear you understand the details here. There's more to the secondary plan than number of storeys and you have to look at setback as well.
For example, Thompson Residences' main roof has a height of 39.5 with ZERO setback off King Street, and a mechanical roof height of 42.5m. That combination is unheard of in King Spadina and why the City took it to the OMB.
You compare that to the King Secondary's plan of massing rights to an overall height of 28m (23m+5m) for mechanically wrapped penthouses and a requirement for setback of 44 degrees after 20m. Now, the City and the neighbourhood has recognized for years that the vision of the King Secondary plan had to be balanced with the reality of development pressures. That's why you do see many buiildings above the height requirements and some much higher because they either have received heritage bonuses or conditions on the site have been traded off for additional height. The average overall height in King Spadina for new buildings is in the 33-34m range. So, you can see how the neighbourhood was unhappy with Freed's approach.
SpadinaBus
Active Member
Thompson Residences and 400 Wellington are not really comparable. From what I recall, the OMB decision for which 400 Wellington was granted was based on a development being an office building. When Sorbara took it over, they did indeed put 12 storeys on it, but look at the building design which is under construction now. Total height including mechanical was 37.77m which setbacks 11.5m from the street, with additional setbacks of 4m at 25m and 9m at 31.5m. There is also a large green area in the front of the building while Thompson is essentially a straight wall up of 39.5m off the street along the entire length of the block. Look at the pictures in the 400 Wellington thread.
skorji
Active Member
Actually, the mechanical penthouse of the 12 storey building is wrapped within the 12th storey, adjacent to the penthouse units. The elements projecting off of the roof are, or were originally, intended to be lounge / outdoor bar spaces related to the amenity area.