Toronto Karma Condos | 165.8m | 50s | Lifetime | a—A

[Edward Skira]

The former president of Minto mentioned at an event that it makes no sense from a financial perspective to build 50-59 storey buildings. Either under 50 or 60 plus is the way to go. Has to do with the fact you need to add elevators which means more units hence the need to go taller.

 

[CITY_LOVER]

The former president of Minto mentioned at an event that it makes no sense from a financial perspective to build 50-59 storey buildings. Either under 50 or 60 plus is the way to go. Has to do with the fact you need to add elevators which means more units hence the need to go taller.

Thanks...makes sense now!

 

[ProjectEnd]

read the report. it's no longer 52 stories - 46 is the final number.

Could you cite this report? The meeting scheduled for Oct 4 still has it pegged at 52s.

 

[interchange42]

Some of the report notices have internal conflicts. Check out the Site Plan Approval at http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=2636079
It lists both 46 and 52 storeys. It also has an internal conflict regarding how to even spell storeys.

42

 

[College Park]

what strikes me most about this is the lack of outdoor amenity space (0.49 per sqm as opposed to 2.00) and the crazy low parking ratios that this will get approved at. 175 stalls is a low number in and of itself but does not include further reductions for car share (close to 30 stalls) and the 29 commervial/visitor. the net number will be closer to 115 stalls for 427 units. not a bad thing (i actually think it's good) just saying.

The parking garage at the MET is only 1/2 to 2/3 occupied (excepting the visitor parking), and I've observed that many parked cars are dusty from sitting still. It's entirely true that downtown residents walk, cycle, or use TTC preferentially, and providing more generous allocations of bicycle parking addresses the likely preferences of these future downtown citizens.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Final Report from the October 4 TEYCC Meeting:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-41026.pdf

AoD

 

[ThomasJ]

The parking garage at the MET is only 1/2 to 2/3 occupied (excepting the visitor parking), and I've observed that many parked cars are dusty from sitting still. It's entirely true that downtown residents walk, cycle, or use TTC preferentially, and providing more generous allocations of bicycle parking addresses the likely preferences of these future downtown citizens.

yup agreed. just find it curious that transportation staff green-lighted it usually they fight. there are a couple of other applications in the area with significantly reduced parking as well so it looks like staff may finally be resigning themselves to the reality of this pedestrian/public transit oriented area.

 

[ThomasJ]

Could you cite this report? The meeting scheduled for Oct 4 still has it pegged at 52s.

alvin posted the link to it below. u need to read the report very carefully as there are conflicting numbers (as has been mentioned). the zoning bylaw doc at the back specifies the height 46 storeys/153.0 metres.

 

[Ramako]

It reads to me like the developer proposed 52 storeys but city staff, in an effort to earn their paycheques, sliced off the usual token handful of floors and approved of only 46 storeys.

 

[ProjectEnd]

...which will subsequently be bumped right back up to 52 (or even higher) when the obligatory 'minor variance' is applied for several years down the line.

 

[interchange42]

It reads to me like the developer proposed 52 storeys but city staff, in an effort to earn their paycheques, sliced off the usual token handful of floors and approved of only 46 storeys.

Just to be clear, it's not what they have approved - they are merely recommending that that City Council only approve 46 storeys and not 52. Council makes the call.

42

 

[ThomasJ]

Just to be clear, it's not what they have approved - they are merely recommending that that City Council only approve 46 storeys and not 52. Council makes the call.

42

correct but wong-tam will not stump for the developer in opposition to planning staff's recommendation. this will pass at 46...and then likely be bumped up later by the obligatory 'minor variance' as ProjectEnd suggests.

 

[Big Daddy]

You gotta love the "reasons" for the reduction:

Ramako is right, they are simply trying to justify their paycheques.
Everything recently built around it is of a similar height, but contextually staff doesnt feel it's right.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Some politics here..this one is going to the OMB.

 

[Edward]

Tomorrow is the day. Those of you who want to offer support need to attend the Grenville council meeting. Committee room 1 on the second floor of City Hall (100 queen st west) sometime after 10:00am. You want taller then go and tell the city you want it.