Toronto Hullmark Centre | 167.94m | 45s | Tridel | Kirkor Architects

[Archivist]

Over the years, it's not uncommon for someone like Sunny to show up with a beef about a single particular development who inevitably makes long, confusing posts that no one can fully follow. Typically, this same person ignores rebuttals in favour of repeating their same arguments again.

I lost it with Sunny when he seemed to be suggesting that these not be built near the subway because it was already overloaded. So if they were built somewhere else, people would ... drive? take buses? It's unclear to me why the city should encourage development isolated from public transportation.

In the end, it usually comes to no good for the poster, who is typically banned. I wouldn't worry too much about this Mr. Sunny - the Hullmark development seems to me to be entirely appropriate to the area and I hope it progresses.

 

[urbandreamer]

Sunnyray does have a point: the current proposal is very suburban in its relationship with the street; a large rectangular 20 story building here built to the property line with a small interior courtyard would easily have more density and urbanity than these "towers on a podium" tedium that is so c.2004.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Sunnyray's School of Urban Planning.

 

[acetradamus]

SunnyRay's points are better than the combined lot of posters against him. Just because you are impatient doesn't mean the guy is wrong. And I don't think he is "directly advocating" shorter, stubbier buildings for the site, he's just saying why should the developer get away with grossly disregarding the existing planning guidelines especially for a residential development at such a prime site for office use.

There is no justification for Tridel to require 160m+ for their buildings, especially using the argument that they need to sell more units to pay for the public requirements.

Its nice to see people here interested in real CITY BUILDING like sunnyray.

This isnt simcity, Yonge/Sheppard isn't a site that should be used to satisfy skyscraper geek fetishes with tall buildings on subway lines. Condos can be built anywhere... why are we wasting such a prime site on just another condo with retail at base.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

First of all, the "longest street in the world" and "North America's busiest highway" are very arguable points. Secondly, if this intersection is as important as you say it is, why should development be limited to 100m? And what's this urban ghetto nonsense?

If the day ever comes where the city actually have to give developer perks to develop at one of the city's most desirable intersections,... then how bad have the rest of the city become?

Development is limited to 100m because that's what our city planners and democratically elected city councillors have agreed upon for this area.

The area has and will continue to densify with or without these two developments. Capping buildings at 100m will not make that big of a difference. Since you go on in your post to advocate the same density on the sites spread out in more towers, I don't see how you can argue that height alone will make these problems worse. I'm not saying the problems don't exist, but a 100m limit won't make them go away.

Another poster was arguing that "it appears you like the public space proposed by Hullmark Centre, but not the tower above it ... do you expect anyone to just 'pay for' the development of public spaces and not 'make profit' from the associated project? basically you are asking developers to build the portion the community likes (plaza), and don't build portions the community dislikes (towers) ... I suppose who cares about the developer's profits ... frankly I don't think that is how business works"

Re-read that post and you should realize I was merely showing that the same number of units (density) can be achieved on that site without grossly exceeding the 100m height limit.

Yes, this area will continue to develop and density will increase,... but let's try to do it within the urban planning guidelines set up by our city planners and democratically elected city councillors. While more and more development happens in this area, the city infrastructure remains basically the same,... and thus everyone is forced to utilize city resources (roads, public transit, schools, etc,..) that are becoming more scarce. The last thing this area needs are developers who only care about maximizing their own profits while screwing over the local community and the city.

Not to split hairs, but I believe Kennedy is still busier than Sheppard-Yonge. Buildings will go up at this intersection, and yes it would be nice if they built in the Yonge side platforms sooner rather than later instead of waiting until the situation gets out of control, but I don't see how these particular projects will make such an expansion impossible while shorter ones would not.

Latest publically available TTC data,....
http://www3.ttc.ca/PDF/Transit_Planning/subway_ridership_2007-2008.pdf

Sheppard-Yonge (lower station YONGE line) 72,200
Sheppard-Yonge (upper station SHEPPARD line) 42,750
Sheppard-Yonge total daily boardings = 114,950

Kennedy (lower station BLOOR-DANFORTH line) 74,830
Kennedy (SCARBOROUGH RT) 40,440
Kennedy total daily boardings = 115,270

I stand corrected ,... arghhh!

Taller buildings need larger building foundation,... while shorter ones need less. Question is have the TTC learned their lesson from the Bloor-Yonge station & St.George station,... where subway platform expansions are now prohibitively expensive because they have all those building foundation structure right up against the subway station.

This project might have things wrong with it, but it really hurts your credibility when you come on here and write variations of the same long posts again and again while ignoring some very important points made by others here. You obviously care about your neighbourhood and this city a lot, and that's very admirable, but please recognize that we all want the best for North York Centre here. We really need to separate the various problems with this proposal away from the 100m limit issue. Personally I'd like to see this and the Bazis project get built - but I'd also like to see schools get built, transit improved, and more office space in the area (when it's needed). If one of the most important intersections in the city gets buildings over 100m, I don't see a problem with that - I might have had some sympathy with you on that one point at least, but I'm sorry, your "artistic roofs above 100m" thing just didn't make sense - either you are for the limit or you are not.

I'm certainly in favour of the 100m height limit and I respect how the city allow some buildings to exceed that limit,... but only the "artistic roofs above 100m",... there is flexibility. The habitable structure of the building is still within the 100m height limit,... but whatever artistic decoration they put on top of the building may cause the building to exceed the 100m limit. That's how the city currently view the 100m limit for the area,...

As silly as some think of these "artistic roofs",... it did give the downtown North York area an identity,... at least those slanted roof did before amalgamation. Many area identify themselves with various rendering of their "artistic roofs",... including Mississauga city centre, the city of Toronto,... and even,... hey look up above,... at the logo of this UrbanToronto website,... artistic rendering of artistic roofs of scotia plaza, BCE Place TD tower, First Canadian Place, CN Tower,... and a fifth unidentified building I'm not familiar with,... anyone?


Personally, I'd like to see both Tridel Hullmark Centre and Bazis Emerald Park project go through,... just within the area height limit, density and zoning (Area A where applicable).

The main point being argued by the Tridel Hullmark Centre at the OMB is the city's zoning of Area A (allowing 0% residential) for this site,... this site, with the exception of Mintos Garden Radiance (OMB-ed)to the east, is basically surrounded by office towers,... 15 storey Proctor & Gamble building to south, 22 storey Nestle building and it's 35,000 sq metre twin tower (developer has approval since mid 90's but haven't started construction) to west, Sheppard Centre to north and 46,500 sq metre Prudential building at north west corner (developer had approval but abandon plans in early 90's). You would like to see "more office space in the area (when it's needed)",... well, since amalgamation, there's been 45-50 condos built in downtown North York,... but only one office building in that same time period,.... As for your "more office space in the area (when it's needed)",... does that applies to condos too?,,...should we only build condos in the area when it's needed?,... certainly looks like there's been way too many condos already. Are condos "needed" in the area,... especially considering that most condo residents drive out of the area for work! I would say we need more condos closer to their workplace.

When do you think more office space would be needed in this area? Or do you think all those new condo residents should continue to pack in the already 100% full capacity Yonge subway southbound to downtown Toronto during the AM rush? Or should they be driving to their work places? If a prime location right at the intersection of Yonge & Sheppard can not be 100% office,.... it would be hard to find a more location for an office building.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

so you are suggesting shorter buildings but more towers on the site ? or alternatively shorter but bulkier (larger footprint) buildings ... so concrete jungle is good but 'point towers' which leaves majority of the site open is bad ???

if so, I'm officially done responding to you ... if you think that is how City Building and Urban Design should be done, you should really go read up on 'Urban Design 101' or something

the current Hullmark Centre design achieves density without 'over developing' the site (leaving open spaces) ... jamming the site full of buildings would be something that a greedy evil developer would do

I'm certainly not saying build more towers on the site. I'm saying the towers should be Shorter (so its within height limit) and wider,... to achieve a desirable density the developer and city can agree to.

Look at the cross-section diagram,... each tower footprint covers about 10% of the available space on that lot. The podium takes up about 80% of the lot (60% exclusive of the 2 tower footprint),.. about 10% for Yonge-Dundas square public space,... and the rest for sidewalk & driveway. The footprint of the 2 towers is only 20% of the available area,... how many condo tower projects only take up 20% of available lots space. Tridel Hullmark Centre design the condo tower skinny so they can build it tall,... and grossly exceeding the area height limit. Obviously, if they build the towers wider, they wouldn't need to build it as tall to achieve their desired number of units.

Are you saying "City Building and Urban Design" dictates buildings should be tall and skinny,... instead of short and bulky,... doesn't it say anything about following city height, density & zoning regulations? BTW,
Automation_Gallery, thanks for the new avatar.

Tall and skinny buildings would "achieves density without 'over developing' the site (leaving open spaces)",... "'point towers' which leaves majority of the site open",... but what open space? These tall and skinny building sits on top of huge podiums including a 10 storey office podium,.. podiums that cover 80% of the lot. Where's the "open space"? All that "open space" on top of the podium? Nobody on street-level is going to see that "open space" on top of the podium,... all they'll see is a huge "concrete jungle",... well, glass and steele giant podium jungle,...

As a building gets built taller and taller,... and the ratio of it's height to footprint gets larger and larger,... in tall skinny buildings there are less units and thus less people per floor,... elevators are making more frequent stops and picking up less passengers per floor,... that building will need more and more elevators to service it adequately,... especially office buildings,.... eventually it reaches a point where the space needed on the lower floors to accommodate all those elevators exceed the amount of space that are actually on those lower floors! And quite often in those downtown skyscraper office towers, as you walk through the lobby, you'll see how much space all those elevator shafts take up relative to the size of the footprint of the building.

Tridel Hullmark has 11 units per floor and 4 elevators & one freight,... there's going to be lots of stops to pick up a low number of passenger,... Anyways, I sure would hate to be waiting for an elevator in one of those tall skinny buildings.

Another problem with tall buildings is emergency rescue during a fire,... how are firefighters supposed to get up there when elevators are out and hook and ladder truck can't get anywhere near those heights.

"jamming the site full of buildings would be something that a greedy evil developer would do",.. because that's jamming the site with more density,... and more density than allowed by the city,... which is what this developer is doing.

 

[ProjectEnd]

This isnt simcity, Yonge/Sheppard isn't a site that should be used to satisfy skyscraper geek fetishes with tall buildings on subway lines. Condos can be built anywhere... why are we wasting such a prime site on just another condo with retail at base.

You're right, it isn't SimCity, it's Toronto, and tall, multi-unit residential buildings on top of transit hubs are a much larger part of the official plan than an area-specific height limit.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

I take it you live there. You know, if you were to move out that would be 1 less car (I take it you drive) another 1,248 and we'll be set.

Yes, I do live in the area,... and trust me, one less car isn't going to mean anything,... I've basically given up driving unless I really have to,... I TTC whenever possible.

You want to know how bad traffic is in the area,....

Last year, the city of Toronto started a detailed traffic study of this area (lots of folks sitting on lawn chairs on sidewalk watching & counting,... watching and counting,... all day long!), and are now examining various "traffic controlling methods" for this particular area. Avondale Avenue is a feeder street servicing east side of Yonge, Florence Avenue is feeder street servicing west side of Yonge,... the size of the area Florence Ave services as a feeder street is much larger than that serviced by Avondale Ave,.. but Florence Avenue service basically all single residential properties, whereas Avondale Avenue now service single residential properties and numerous condos on the east side of Yonge Street. Florence Avenue is 2 lanes that becomes 3 lanes at Yonge and has no problem at AM Peak time (5-10 cars lining up at light). Avondale has been widen to 4 lanes that becomes 5 lanes at Yonge including 2 left turn lane from Avondale westbound to Yonge southbound (towards 401 & downtown Toronto),... During AM peak, these two left turn lanes are about 200m long,... starts at Yonge goes past Harrison Garden Blvd, often past Everson Dr and almost to Tradewind Avenue,... and cars on all these side streets are queuing up to get onto Avondale. Even though the city just finished widening Avondale Avenue just a few years ago (probably 3 years ago),... now they're talking about widening Avondale Avenue even more, again!,... so it'll have 3 left turn lanes from Avondale westbound to Yonge southbound! Gee, with anymore widening of Avondale Avenue,... soon it'll be wider than 7 lane Yonge Street!,... and Yonge Street will be Avondale's service road! NOTE: Yonge only has 3 southbound lanes! And it's not like they can easily widen Yonge Street anymore,... oh, that's right they just widen Yonge Street southbound between Avondale/Florence and 401 last summer!,... mainly for double left turn lane from Yonge southbound to 401 eastbound.

But where did all these cars come from? Apparently a lot of those condo residents don't work in the area, and even though they live on the subway line,... they need to drive to work! Gee, I wonder how that happens? especially when they build 45-50 condos in an area and only 1 office building since amalgamation,... Duh! Urban planning at its best! But, let's just keep building grossly oversized condo on land zoned for offices at prime intersections! We need more offices in downtown North York,... and build more condos closer to where people actually work.

All these car congestion problems on Avondale Avenue,... and the service ring road isn't even in place yet! Wow,... just wait until 4 lane Doris Avenue gets expanded south of Sheppard Avenue East to Avondale Avenue,... and all those new condos are completed. Obviously, this is the kind of car gridlock you should expect on the extended 2 lane (3 lanes at Yonge) Anndale Drive service road as well. Tridel Hullmark Centre residents will be joining the AM peak traffic queue as soon as they inch out of their parking spot,...

The local city councillor has repeatedly warned anyone considering buying a condo or house in this area to not just check it out during the weekend when everyone is condo/house shopping,... but to check out driving in the neighbourhood during AM rush hour when you'd be driving to work.

BTW, city of Toronto is also considering bike lanes, one way streets, more sidewalks, reduced speed limits,... and even fly-over ramp from southbound Yonge just south of Franklin Ave over all lanes of 401 to eastbound 401 ,.... city of Toronto seems a heck of a lot more interested in improving car traffic in the area than in improving public transit.

 

[taal]

Right, I was just kidding ... the point you indicated there were x amount of parking spots ... so if you leave it's x-1

Anyway, I live in the area - just north of NYCC station so I know exactly what you're talking about.

Regarding the city of Toronto and improving transportation. What exactly do you suggest - I'd argue Yonge and Finch/Sheppard are some of the best connected locals in all of Toronto. With access to GO 2 subway lines - YRT, brampton ... Moreover, it's surrounded by some of the busiest and more frequent bus routes in all of Toronto (39, 36, 60, 53)

You say people aren't working in the area, where are they working? I don't see what improved transit we can offer. The traffic issue your concerned about is Yonge south of Sheppard, in other words it's the 401 W/E.

It's really not the cities place to decide when office towers go up - I've had this debate before but for the life of me I personally don't understand why the demand for office space in NYCC isn't astronomically higher. It should beet out anywhere on Hi-Way 7 and Missi/airport. If it comes down to a tax issue that's a Toronto wide problem that needs to be addressed.

There is a significant office compontent in the Hullmark development.

Also just to clarify, I think you'll find even if there were more office buildings the demand for condos would be that much higher and you really wouldn't see much in terms of reduced traffic. NYCC is a deriable place to live even for those working far away.

So finally, I'll end with a question - given the above, you really would prefer NO development take place correct? As I said even, if it was a 30 story office building it's still likely to demand as much out of area, contributing to the traffic problem proportionately

 

[adma]

As silly as some think of these "artistic roofs",... it did give the downtown North York area an identity,... at least those slanted roof did before amalgamation. Many area identify themselves with various rendering of their "artistic roofs",... including Mississauga city centre, the city of Toronto,... and even,... hey look up above,... at the logo of this UrbanToronto website,... artistic rendering of artistic roofs of scotia plaza, BCE Place TD tower, First Canadian Place, CN Tower,... and a fifth unidentified building I'm not familiar with,... anyone?

Huh? I never felt "artistic roofs" gave any strong "identity" to NYCC. It isn't like the slopes of Madison Centre or Nestle turned this into, say, Libeskind's Ground Zero concept. Heck, one may even argue that the flat-roofed Brutalist-era cluster of the Sheppard Centre is just as much of an "identity-giver" in its way--and the hypothetical logo of an "Urban North York" site might figure a way to abstract it, too. (If you notice, the UT logo rendering of FCP, especially, is recognizable through matters *other* than roofline.)

 

[HDLtd]

sunnyray, the developer isn't exceeding density limits. The property allows for 4.5 times density, with an allowable 33% incentive subject to price/sqft and section 37, totalling 5.95 times. The development also is comprised of 33% commercial, 200,000 sqft of LEED class A office space, some condo offices, and 70,000 sqft of retail. Considering how much office and retail space was secured by the city during the last 15 boom years, I would say this is a coup.

 

[adma]

Incidentally, that "fifth unidentified building" is the Trump tower at Adelaide + Yonge (presently under construction)

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

Other than the height how is this not like Empress Walk? And sitting on top of two subway stations why shouldn't the density be higher?

That's an interesting question. Should condo on subway site be given higher density? What about office space on subway sites?

The main issue Tridel Hullmark Centre is arguing at the OMB is the city zoning for Area A (0% residential) for that site, since the city wants offices there and no residential condo.

Let's imagine a typical condo unit, with 1 or 2 bedrooms, living-dining room area, kitchen area, bathroom and maybe a den. Now how many people will typically live in this typical condo unit? 1, 2, maybe 3, but rarely 4 or more,... Now imagine if the same floor space used by this typical condo unit was used by an office,.... how many people could work in this office space? The main bedroom would make a nice executive office,... the other bedroom or den could be a manager office,.. the living-dinning room area could have room for 4, 6, or 8 cubicles,... Thus, this same amount of floor space that's used for a typical condo unit to house 1, 2, 3 or so people,... can be used for an office where more times as many people can work,....

Thus, we can easily see that if we had two buildings of the exact same dimensions, same height, same width, same length, same number of floors, same amount of floor space, etc,... but one was for all residential condo use and the other was for all office use,... the office building would provide work for many times more people than can live in that same amount of space.

Now let's imagine hypothetically, the Tridel Hullmark Centre development,... there was the choice to build two different developments,... one all residential condo and the other all office usage. NOTE: I did use the word "hypothetically" so I'm giving a example for debate,... and in hindsight I should have used that word in a previous example as well, before a number of poster started flipping thinking I was advocating shoe-horning in 8 towers on the site.

Anyways,... for the sake of argument, let's assume in the all residential condo case the Tridel Hullmark Centre with its current proposed dimensions was all condo towers and no office space. How many people would be living there? And how many of them will be leaving their condo everyday or at least during a work day? Not every condo resident will be leaving and thus requiring to use private transit (car) or public transit (subway),... some stay in condo all day,... some work from home, are house-wives, retired, unemployed, pre-school age kids, etc,...

Now let's assume in the all office case the Tridel Hullmark Centre with its current proposed dimensions was all office space and no residential condo space. How many people would be working there? As shown above, a lot more (actually many multiples) than could be living there,.... And how many of them will be leaving their office everyday or at least during a work day? During a weekday,.. everybody! Even the workaholic would have to leave sometimes,... all the office workers fill in the office in the morning and leave during the late afternoon and early evening,... Since typically, its only the executive who gets parking spots in these office buildings,... the vast majority of workers will need to rely on public transit (ie subway!),...

Given buildings of the same size and dimensions,... office buildings will have much more people (workers) than a condo building can house,.. And a much higher percentage of occupants of the office building will be relying on public transit than condo buildings residents,.... Thus, sites on subway lines like the Tridel Hullmark Centre site should be used for all office use only to optimize its potential,... residential condo usage at such a site is clearly a waste of potential.

Also, take into consideration, Toronto, for a city of this size, is really lacking in subway lines. Most international cities of Toronto's size have much better and denser subway networks. Given that,... should the scarce resource of desirable sites at major intersections on subway lines be used for residential or office purposes?

If you were to go to Empress Walk and hang out in the podium between the twin residential towers during the AM rush and observe the Empress Walk condo residents make their way to their direct access subway station,... you'll observe a steady trickle of condo residents going to the North York City Centre subway station. Now, if you were to go across the street to the building lobby of the the twin office towers of North York city centre,.. you'll observer a much higher number of people making their way out of the subway and into the office building of North York City Centre.

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

sunnyray, the developer isn't exceeding density limits. The property allows for 4.5 times density, with an allowable 33% incentive subject to price/sqft and section 37, totalling 5.95 times. The development also is comprised of 33% commercial, 200,000 sqft of LEED class A office space, some condo offices, and 70,000 sqft of retail. Considering how much office and retail space was secured by the city during the last 15 boom years, I would say this is a coup.

Arrgh,... I could never understand these city of Toronto density "incentives" and density "transfer" which Bazis Emerald Park is also using from community social place at the church across Beecroft,.... anyways, I guess that's why I'm not using Automation_Gallery's cartoon of "Guy pouring over Zoning Regulations manual" as my new avatar.

House, condo and office just like the economy as a whole works on a boom-bust cycle of boom, recession, bust (depression) and recovery,... The boom-bust cycles of houses, condos and offices don't necessarily coincide with each other at the same time. During the last 14 years of real estate boom year for house and condos, the office market in Toronto was the exact opposite,... the office market was a total bust.

As the house and condo market seems to have finally levelled off and are now undergoing a correction (ie bust),... the office market is finally starting to show a pulse,... at least in downtown Toronto where there's a handful (around 4) of new office buildings under construction,... a first since the early 1990's when phase 2 of BCE Place finished (phase 3 tower opposite Bay-Wellington Tower never went ahead). Maybe the city of Toronto's new tax rebates (subsidy) have something to do with it,... and now the Provincial government seems more serious about regional transit and is committed to improving GO Train service, which will help the downtown Toronto office market, since more office workers can rely on better and more frequent GO Train service in the years to come. Will the downtown Toronto office market continue to rise from the ashes of the recession of the early 1990's,... will this recession/depression bust it's bubbles? If the downtown Toronto office market continue to rise,... will the downtown North York office market follow the rise? Does "rising tides lift all boats"? Only time will tell.

The downtown North York office market was hit hard by that recession of the early 1990's,... directly to the west of the Tridel Hullmark Centre site, sits a 21 storey Nestle building with a huge blank podium wall waiting for its 35,000 square metre twin building that was never built. At the north-west corner of Yonge and Sheppard sits the graveyard site of the 46,500 square metre Prudential building whose plan was abandoned in the early 1990's after it got all the city approvals. (BTW, for anyone interested the 10 storey 200,000 square foot office space of Tridel Hullmark Centre works out to 18,580 square metre.) A few years ago, the local councillor was drawing media attention the 3 corners of Yonge & Sheppard at a subway interchange ready for serious office development,... still no taker.

The only office development downtown North York have seen since amalgamation is 20 storey Aegon Place (TransAmerica) finished in 2004 and without direct subway access (similar in size to 21 storey 35,000 square metre Nestle Building at Yonge & Sheppard south-west corner),.. during a time when downtown Toronto still saw nothing. When (not if) office development comes back to downtown North York,... and office developer start looking for suitable sites for real office buildings in downtown North York. What will they find? Will all the prime sites along Yonge at major intersections like Sheppard and Finch with direct subway access be taken up by residential condo buildings?

What will downtown North York become? What is downtown North York now? Is downtown North York really a downtown? A traditional downtown has a net inflow of traffic in the morning as people goes to work downtown. That used to happen in downtown North York before amalgamation,... this doesn't happen anymore in "downtown" North York. Now, the net flow of people is out of the downtown North York area,... this is what happens when they build 45-50 residential condo buildings vs one office building in the downtown North York area since amalgamation. The recent city of Toronto traffic study of the downtown North York area shows a pedestrian can walk faster from Doris Ave & Sheppard Ave East to Yonge & 401 than a car can drive during AM rush. During AM rush, various outbound routes from Doris Ave & Sheppard Ave East to Yonge Street & Avondale Ave will take a car 8:32 & 9:25 (minutes:seconds), whereas the same routes inbound will take 1:52 & 3:13 (minutes:seconds). This shows a strong net migration of cars (and people) out of the downtown North York area,.... remember those suburban "sleeping communities" where everybody leaves for downtown to work,.. well, downtown North York has now become a vertical "sleeping community" suburb!

 

[sunnyraytoronto]

sunnyray, the developer isn't exceeding density limits. The property allows for 4.5 times density, with an allowable 33% incentive subject to price/sqft and section 37, totalling 5.95 times. The development also is comprised of 33% commercial, 200,000 sqft of LEED class A office space, some condo offices, and 70,000 sqft of retail. Considering how much office and retail space was secured by the city during the last 15 boom years, I would say this is a coup.

The latest "Preliminary Report" dated August 29, 2006 have Tridel Hullmark Centre at 5.98 FSI,...

Anyways,... trying to figure out how significant 200,000 square feet (18,580 square metre) of office space for this site,... I did some walking around,.. actually, walking around the perimeter of the Tridel Hullmark Centre site and the Nestle Building site across the street.

The Nestle Building site is at the south-west corner of Yonge & Sheppard, half of the site is empty parking lot and the other half has 21 storey Nestle office building with habitable portion within 100m but the building height is 118m due to,... dare I say it,... an "artistic roof". Anyways,... the Nestle building is about 35,000 square metres,... the empty lot directly to the east of the Nestle Building is for it's twin office building which was approved in the mid 90's and have yet to be built,... that too was for 35,000 square metres for a total of 70,000 square metres for that site. The density zoning for the site is still listed as 4.5 FSI.

This surely isn't the most scientific way of measuring things,... but while I walked around the perimeter of both lots,... I counted the number of steps I took,... the following calculations is just to get a rough estimate of the area of both sites. The length of the Nestle office building site was 175 steps,.... the length of the Tridel Hullmark Centre site was 195 steps, subtracting 20 steps for the extension of Anndale Drive,... and we have a length of 175 steps for the buildable portion of Tridel Hullmark Centre.

Since they're both equal length,... it'll come down to the width. The Nestle office building lot width is 75 steps. The Tridel Hullmark Centre lot width is 110 steps,... 46.7% wider than the Nestle office building lot,... thus the area of the Tridel Hullmark Centre lot (minus the land for Anndale Drive extension) is 46.7% bigger than the Nestle office building lot.

Nestle office building lot can have 70,000 square metre of office space,... assuming it was built up to the 4.5 FSI max. Thus, the Tridel Hullmark Centre could have about 102,900 square metre of office space (70,000 square metre + 46.7% more). The current proposal with 18,580 square metre of office space only account for about 18.1% of the possible office space the Tridel Hullmark Centre lot can accommodate,... under 4.5 FSI.

Oh that's right,... Tridel Hullmark Centre is exercising the allowable 33% density incentive,... allowing a max of 5.985 FSI. Thus instead of using 102,900 square metre (based on 4.5 FSI) the Tridel Hullmark Centre site can accommodate 33% more office space for a total of about 136,857 square metre. Thus, the current proposal with 18,580 square metre of office space only account for about 13.6% of the possible office space the Tridel Hullmark Centre lot can accommodate,... under 5.985 FSI after getting extra 33% density incentive.

Tridel Hullmark Centre current proposal consist of only 13.6% of the total office space that lot can accommodate. 13%,... that's basically the sales tax,.. GST + PST,... chump change,... and definitely not significant. Does this sound like a good deal for the city of Toronto?

Seeing that the city have spent so much money over the years providing infrastructure like 2 subway lines here,... it's no wonder why the city won't let anyone squander the potential of this site. Its like the Toronto Maple Leafs,... paying big bucks for a high calibre top hockey player,... and having that player only give 18% of his effort,... or after kicking in signing and incentive bonuses, the player only gives 13.6% of his full potential. The Toronto Maple Leafs maybe used to losing,... but the city of Toronto shouldn't be!