Toronto 820 Church Street | 124.1m | 38s | 820 Church GP | Arcadis

That's two new proposals now on that weird curvy end of Church.
 
It's a very complicated site. Subway tunnel beneath and hydro infrastructure next door add a ton of complications to an already tight site.
 
Front page story up here… and in regard to @innsertnamehere's comment re: barely any room to park a few cars, as this is a hotel, there's not a single parking space proposed. None. Zip cars. Cool.
It's a very complicated site. Subway tunnel beneath and hydro infrastructure next door add a ton of complications to an already tight site.
Actually, the subway tunnel is immediately to the west. Read all about it in the front page story!

42
 
I hope they include some major improvements to Sherlock Holmes Lane (the lane between this proposal and the Reference Library), an underused and sad-looking space for such a grand name. Maybe replace the 80's street lamps with gas lamps as a nod to its namesake. 😉
 
I hope they include some major improvements to Sherlock Holmes Lane (the lane between this proposal and the Reference Library), an underused and sad-looking space for such a grand name. Maybe replace the 80's street lamps with gas lamps as a nod to its namesake. 😉
Great comment. Participate and share this comment with Planning staff.
 
Preliminary report on this one is headed to the February 24th meeting of TEYCC:


One step shy of an outright refusal report off the bat. From the report:

The proposal is not acceptable in its current form, the tower is too tall, does not respond appropriately to the planned context, and does not provide appropriate transition to the low-rise Neighbourhood to the east.

1613139876022.png


1613139908017.png


Of course shadowing is noted........

But a public realm issue to which I am sympathetic is also brought forward:

1613139979570.png
 
32 storeys is too tall for Yorkville?

Okay, good luck arguing that at LPAT, City Planning.

I would assume the gist of any height argument would be about shadowing, given the surrounding buildings.

That made me go look.

Before we get into the shadow cast by this building..........in one of the shadow study files, they show the shadow cast on this proposed building by 1 Bloor West, at 85 storeys in height.

I thought that interesting.

1613921368945.png


I've looked through all of the Sun/Shadow files; though admittedly, quite briefly.

Certainly in terms of parks, I don't see a lot of accretive damage here.

Some of that is because of how shadowed this area already is........

But there isn't a lot of net new shadow.

I'll just post 3 of the slides.

The first two of these shows the largest amount of net new shadow this proposal will cause.


1613921836192.png


Note that this is new shadows in the morning, in June, and as such to the north-west of the proposal.


1613921909872.png


This one is mid-day to mid-afternoon in June

****

As one can see, most of the accretive shadow will not affect area parks.

****

But for contrast...........lets look at how shadowed this area can be already:

1613922038999.png


This is December, which offers the least light of the year, morning through mid-day.

But look at how little light makes it to this area now!

****

On the whole, I don't think the shadowing argument will stand well here, but that's my inexpert take.
 
I would assume the gist of any height argument would be about shadowing, given the surrounding buildings.

That made me go look.

Before we get into the shadow cast by this building..........in one of the shadow study files, they show the shadow cast on this proposed building by 1 Bloor West, at 85 storeys in height.

I thought that interesting.

View attachment 300995

I've looked through all of the Sun/Shadow files; though admittedly, quite briefly.

Certainly in terms of parks, I don't see a lot of accretive damage here.

Some of that is because of how shadowed this area already is........

But there isn't a lot of net new shadow.

I'll just post 3 of the slides.

The first two of these shows the largest amount of net new shadow this proposal will cause.


View attachment 300996

Note that this is new shadows in the morning, in June, and as such to the north-west of the proposal.


View attachment 300997

This one is mid-day to mid-afternoon in June

****

As one can see, most of the accretive shadow will not affect area parks.

****

But for contrast...........lets look at how shadowed this area can be already:

View attachment 300998

This is December, which offers the least light of the year, morning through mid-day.

But look at how little light makes it to this area now!

****

On the whole, I don't think the shadowing argument will stand well here, but that's my inexpert take.
The City only really cares about the March and September shadows. December's are considered too long to bother with, and nothing is growing then anyway, and the June shadows are considered too short to be of consequence. March and September offer better average shadowing results.

42
 
New renderings are updated in the database!

The building storey count remains the same at 32 storeys. The total building heights increased from 105.30m to 113.43m. The total number of parking spaces is 0 parking spaces. Lastly, the total number of hotel rooms proposed is 171 hotel rooms.

The rendering is taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning application:

PLN - Architectural Plans - FEB 16  2022-1.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - FEB 16  2022-59.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - FEB 16  2022-62.jpg
 
So they doubled down on the height (adding 8 m) despite the outcry at the initial review. They must be confident it will get approved. I hope something gets built there soon regardless of height - it's been an eyesore for far too long!
 

Top