ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't know how they could built a 42 story condo on that tiny bit of land.
Toronto 700 Bay Street | 94.79m | 32s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
plyta
New Member
There is a smokestack just across the street. I'd assume, at 45s, the building would be taller that the smokestack. That has to be an issue?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
It will be close....................450ft/137m - Enwave Walton St. steam plant stack
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/8089-List-of-Toronto-non-highrise-structures
AlbertC
Superstar
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
My hunch calls for a G+C for this one.
AoD
AoD
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Not G+C.
Ramako
Moderator
I'm gonna go with Quadrangle.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
It may be problematic. Enwave was basically forced to modernize their Pearl street plant due to the construction of Shangri-la back in 2010-11. http://www.srcoils.com/2887wp/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/DistrictEnergy-Enwave-Article-Web.pdf
The solution contemplated prior to that were to raise the stack height(only 250ft/76m high http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/8089-List-of-Toronto-non-highrise-structures http://ec.gc.ca/inrp-npri/donnees-d...n&opt_npri_id=0000007656&opt_report_year=2011) relocate the facility(not realistically possible) or modernize it. http://www.districtenergy.org/asset...f/Proceedings/C43SOTIROVidea-June-26th-v3.pdf They choose the latter option. What isn't known is who exactly footed the bill for that. It hardly seems fair that Enwave would have to pay for the costs of modernizing their facility since they existed in that location long before Shangri-la was built. My guess is that Westbank, the developers of Shangri-la, had to at least chip in something. Question is, would Enwave be required to modernize their Walton street plant if a residential building taller than the stack was built next to? Its not an issue if the facility is already in compliance with future air emission regulations. Otherwise there might be some large costs involved. I don't believe the facility has been modernized since I recall the height of the adjacent Sick Kids building was restricted due to the stacks height. However it might only be an issue if a taller building was purposed, at 45s this building likely won't be taller then the stack.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Preliminary report http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-74319.pdf
" Planning staff have advised the applicant that the application in its current form cannot be supported."
" Planning staff have advised the applicant that the application in its current form cannot be supported."
G.L.17
Senior Member
Community Meeting Date Feb 2, 2015
I suppose the design and been significantly revised. Does anyone know where and what time this is at? The development application page doesn't provide that information.
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3626117
I suppose the design and been significantly revised. Does anyone know where and what time this is at? The development application page doesn't provide that information.
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3626117
I'm not sure it has been revised yet. What's making you think so?
42
42
ProjectEnd
Superstar
It has not been revised.
G.L.17
Senior Member
My bad. Jumped the gun a little with the preliminary report.
Bayer
Senior Member
The report mentions a deterioration of the pedestrian realm, but Gerrard and Elizabeth can hardly get worse that it is now, with the bunker-like Elizabeth McMaster building next door and the institutional feel that prevails in the area. Then there is City Hall's view corridor, which does not seem that relevant to me in a growing city.
The City Hall view corridor is only relevant because it is a growing city.
42
42