not to mention the tall building guideline is complete BS and should be rid of. It is actually amazing Jarvis is mostly low rise as if we are in the middle of Collingwood, not toronto.This is why we need the OMB. This shouldn't be considered “over-development” at Dundas & Jarvis.
I suppose you have never been to Elora. I don't see a river, limestone cliffs or heritage mills anywhere along Jarvis, perhaps st Lawrence market is a bit like Elora. I'd say its more like Kitchener.Nah, Jarvis reminds me more of Elora than Collingwood.
Your comment about people not getting to the nuts and bolts is quite presumptuous. I focused on the height after reading the preliminary report that suggested it should be 10-17 storeys.I appreciate that this is a forum and most comments are rather superficial in nature (I.e. "Collingwood" example) and that people naturally gravitate to the headline height number rather than digging into the nuts and bolts of the actual planning challenges that the site presents. I certainly agree that the site should is ripe for a "higher and better" use, but the height itself is not really an issue (that is something that the proponent and city can either negotiate to a mutual agreement that is economically feasible or that the OMB can step in and mediate.... As an aside for all the people calling on the OMB to simpy step in here and on other sites, that role is changing and I would expect to see a lot more mediation in the future vs decisions that have a winner vs a loser).
The complication from a planning perspective here is not the height, nor the density - it is the constraints of the site itself and the immediate neighboring towers. I think we can all fairly debate whether a 25m tower separation is an appropriate distance in an urbanizing setting, but it is fair to say that the planning considerations are centered around light penetration and privacy between generally mostly glazed and transparent buildings...
What is being proposed isn't really a minor variance, but fairly tight sperations of 18.2m from the Great Gulf project Pace and 22m and 13.7m to the buildings to the east. Those considerations (as well as parkland, but I won't comment on that) are the real challenges being presented by the project.... Everyone always gravitates towards height, but that can be figured out, these other issues based on the 25m standard are real challenges.
You should read his post more closely. There are a number of issues beyond height alone, and the previous poster did clearly indicate a view regarding the 17 floor limit. The facing distances are important, particularly to the built environment and to the people who will eventually live in the building. There is more to a building and the context than height alone.Your comment about people not getting to the nuts and bolts is quite presumptuous. I focused on the height after reading the preliminary report that suggested it should be 10-17 storeys.
While I didn't gravitate towards the tower separation issue, I find it equally as silly as the height restriction/recommendation. Is that really a tight separation in an urban environment? I really think the Toronto planning department treats Toronto like a suburb.
Not meant to be taken so literal. Purposely went for the absurd comparison.I suppose you have never been to Elora. I don't see a river, limestone cliffs or heritage mills anywhere along Jarvis, perhaps st Lawrence market is a bit like Elora. I'd say its more like Kitchener.
But I'm from Elora and a bit biased on this.
17 stories is stupid, I don't understand why this side of downtown seems to have so many obstacles to overcome in order to be further developed.
It's all good, its rare that Elora comes up in passing, so i feel obligated to defend it lol. It's much prettier than Jarvis. I think there is hope though, Jarvis has lots of potential, some nice recent projects, allen gardens, st lawrence market, etc. It just needs some more attention along certain stretches mostly south of Gerard.Not meant to be taken so literal. Purposely went for the absurd comparison.