AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That one begs for a response. Since we're on the matter of height and density - values like opposition to the rather timid Humbertown project?
AoD
Toronto Cumberland Square | 253.92m | 75s | KingSett Capital | Giannone Petricone
That one begs for a response. Since we're on the matter of height and density - values like opposition to the rather timid Humbertown project?
AoD
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
^Exactly. There are plenty of sites remaining in Yorkville that can be repurposed to build tall. Would it be "cool to have an 85 storey tower here"? Sure, but then reality sets in. If they felt they could feasibly build 85 storeys of condos or rentals, I am sure they would. There are economical and physical limitations and risk issues. Don't worry there will be other sites that will go higher in the future. Also isn't this phase 1 of 2? We don't know what is coming for the Yonge side do we?
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Still??
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
i42 suggest some kind of lower-scaled hotel component. You probably can't fit a serious tower there without running afoul of the 25m separation distance with the CIBC tower in any case.
AoD
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Interesting. I did a calc going about 80ft (~25m) north from the back of the CIBC building, which leaves about 60 ft for buildable length going north to Cumberland, incl setback from the street. Is that enough space for a significant tower? Guess time will tell.
Bayer
Senior Member
His values can be summarized by the word "no", while "yes" is what our city needs.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Toronto is building lots of tall stuff. Developing Yorkville is about more than height. The area is already getting some very tall buildings, but it's never been height that brings people here.
Mike in TO
Senior Member
The "city" had nothing to do with the decision by a private sector entity to mitigate risks and propose a 54s rental tower. Given the federal tax structure with respect the GST treatment of rental housing, lack of ability to defer capital gains & recaptured depreciation deductions upon the disposition of rental properties and the "big one" on federal treatment of capital cost allowances... building purpose built rental is extremely risky which is why we see very little purpose built rental in the city. This "54 storey stump" as you've called it and suggested that city council or bureaucratic meddling has caused a reduction in height is a strange analysis given the fact that the proponent is proposing to construct the tallest ever purpose built rental tower in the city (Manulife built in 1972 is if I remember correctly currently the tallest purpose built rental tower in the city).
I'm going to suggest that for most proposals within the downtown core (and by extension the Yorkville area) that while planning context is critical (and the context here is two neighbouring taller approved buildings than what is being proposed on this site - they could have proposed and likely secured approvals for a taller building if they wanted to - they chose not to...) financial feasibility, return on investment and acceptable risks have far more to do with the proposal that you are so disappointed in than meddling bureaucrats. I would again point out that the proposal is purpose built rental - frankly I'm surprised they would propose such a large project given the federal tax laws surrounding investment in new purpose-built rental housing - this is a fairly high risk proposal as this scale.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That statement provides no support as to why a 50s tower is an undesirable outcome.
AoD
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Probably because it wasn't intended to be.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
As always Mike, your patience and erudition is most appreciated.
pw20
Active Member
This. Plus 100. This isn't SimCity.
Uptowner
Active Member
Well, if you have absolutely reliable information that "the city" [obviously used synecdochically (sorry, Pw20, for that word) so no need for you to put it in quotes] had nothing to do with this change then, once again, I admit that my concern was misplaced. To me losing even one floor due to the city is painful but I do realize I am in the minority in that respect.
As for the rental aspect that is all very interesting. I mean that sincerely and also thank you for taking the time to explain all of that. I want to be clear I am not on here to "win" a debate or score cheap points. I was (am) truly under the impression that the city does want to limit the height of some buildings in the area/downtown like Casa III, 50 Bloor W, 501 Yong and many others.
To try and sum up my skepticism I will ask a question. Is it really the opinion of well-informed UTers that building heights in this city would be just as tall if there never existed an OMB (or equivalent) and all powers were in the hands of the city? If that is really the case I will defer to your better judgment but, I suspect, remain unconvinced myself.
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
1 Bloor East will have it as well
Mike in TO
Senior Member
Short answer is without the OMB, no the building heights would not be as tall (but there would likely be another mechanism to ensure provincial policy is adhered to in the planning process)... longer answer would involve ward by ward local politics (i.e. Kyle Rae often pushed for taller buildings while Michael Walker would oppose anything and everything if more then a couple residents called to complain). Some buildings might lose a couple floors here and there, but others gain a few floors here and there through CofA applications. You've articulated disappointment that you perceive the planning department to be fighting against height, but I'd encourage you to follow a few ratepayer organization comments on other social media and they would articulate that they think the planning department is totally out of control in terms of what they are recommending for approval (i.e. they think developers are in control) - lots of different perspectives out there.