Toronto 8 Elm | 218.2m | 69s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis

Where are you getting that? They are proposing 469 bicycle spaces and no automobile parking. The plans reflect this as does the planning justification report.
 
I actually think it would be better without the curves. They don't flatter the overall shape, at least not with the frequency/depth they've chosen.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Where are you getting that? They are proposing 469 bicycle spaces and no automobile parking. The plans reflect this as does the planning justification report.
Click to expand...

Right you are - completely misread the "proposed" vs. "required" rows. That's great - hope it sets a precedent for the area. So presumably the new provincial lifting of parking requirements hasn't yet come into effect, and thus they're seeking here a variance with that eventuality in mind, right?
 
NorthshoreCity said:
There are buildings far taller than this going up in New York with near identical footprints. If the design could more closely resemble something like 111 West 57th then there is an opportunity to create something that's actually impressive without as many issues as one would think.
Click to expand...

Maybe not the best building to emulate right now, as they have put off sales until next year because there is no market for apartments like that now.
 
Well, 111W57 is in a completely different stratosphere in terms of price of units, so I don't think it's a particularly useful parallel to draw.
 
Again , New York allows for the redistribution of density through unused density transfers. The density for the neighbourhood/district is capped. There's really nothing in Toronto that prevents developers from lining block after block of 30+ FAR developments. (West 57th is capped at around 10 FAR) We also cram way more people into our 80 storey buildings too.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Nice:cool:, nothing wrong with 260 meters there
Click to expand...

No offense but, I don't think you would find issue with 260 metres anywhere.

Minimum separations between towers must be considered. The proposed density must be considered. The size of Elm Street itself must be considered. The bastardization of this great heritage structure must be considered. Overshadowing the neighbouring National Historic Landmark (St George's Hall) with P+S junk must be considered. I could go on.
 
maestro said:
Again , New York allows for the redistribution of density through unused density transfers. The density for the neighbourhood/district is capped. There's really nothing in Toronto that prevents developers from lining block after block of 30+ FAR developments. (West 57th is capped at around 10 FAR) We also cram way more people into our 80 storey buildings too.
Click to expand...

Great Summary. Toronto should adopt this model. It's more civilized through master planning.
 
maestro said:
Again , New York allows for the redistribution of density through unused density transfers. The density for the neighbourhood/district is capped. There's really nothing in Toronto that prevents developers from lining block after block of 30+ FAR developments. (West 57th is capped at around 10 FAR) We also cram way more people into our 80 storey buildings too.
Click to expand...

Partly true, though aspects of NYC's development planning are not to be emulated anywhere, 57th actually being a perfect example of some of those principles run amok.

In 10 years, 57th will be truly cavernous and uninviting at-grade, with no less than seven 1,000+ ft. towers in varying stages of development. People on these threads think shadowing concerns garner too much attention in Toronto - they should get a taste of the very vocal NY NIMBYism that has arisen in no small part due to the 57th-street devs and their impact on shadowing in Central Park.

Still, if some concerns pertaining to this development are adequately addressed, I'm not of the opinion that it represents a significantly deleterious overdevelopment of the site, taken by itself.
 
The Address for the numbered company attached to this application and listed as the owner of the lands is the same as Pemberton's offices, so I'm going to assume this is them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top