ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Is there a thread for the TOC here?
Toronto Exhibition Transit Oriented Community: Jefferson Site | 71.9m | 19s | Infrastructure ON | SvN
- Thread starter ChesterCopperpot
- Start date
ben.thebean1
Active Member
It doesn't appear that these have been properly mentioned anywhere- two TOC developments proposed for the site immediately north of Exhibition. I didn't want to make a new thread yet just in case it's already out there, but it definitely hasn't been posted here yet
More info can be found at https://engageio.ca/en/engagement-initiatives/exhibition
More info can be found at https://engageio.ca/en/engagement-initiatives/exhibition
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
RFP for the Transit-Oriented Community site adjacent to the new EXHIBITION station is now on-the-street.
WislaHD
Superstar
The massing for these proposed buildings are about 40-storeys too short.
The posts above have been removed from the Ontario Line 3 Exhibition Station thread to create a thread for the TOC planned for north of it. At some point we may split this thread into separate ones for the Jefferson Site and the Atlantic Site (both database files are linked above), but for now at the conceptual stage, one thread should suffice!
Meanwhile, here's a front page story laying out what's proposed here.
42
Meanwhile, here's a front page story laying out what's proposed here.
42
afransen
Senior Member
This seems crazy-modest for a major interchange station like Exhibition.
Koops65
Senior Member
Why so short?
rdaner
Senior Member
Things are likely to change moving forward. And don’t forget that all of the lots west of Atlantic and south of Liberty will be radically upzoned so we are talking about many thousands of units and quite a few high rises.
xy3
Active Member
Whats the reasoning behind the short height ? It's quite short for a transit TOD plan.
Does this have somthing to do with a Billy Bishop Airport flight path?
Does this have somthing to do with a Billy Bishop Airport flight path?
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Northern Light
Superstar
A quick skim of the Planning Rationale docs will afford you an answer, whether one agrees with the answer maybe something different:
So the first part of the answer is that this is self-imposed (they are exceeding existing as-of-right height, so they chose their own 'ask' here.)
The broadly chose to go for a new height precedent, but only by a bit over the nearest recent completion.
***
There are other reasons though.
Lets look at the way they configured the towers on the east side of the site:
These are not large floor plates, and they have only 2 elevators as it stands. Going taller here would mean more elevators and smaller leasable/sellable ft2.
***
Here's the overhead view of the massing:
I have to say, the separation distance between the tower forms seems abnormally high, I wonder if they were trying to compensate for an E-W orientation here by letting more sunlight through the middle?
Below, for context, the 2 sites in red, you can see how shallow the eastern sites are:
On those eastern sites, to go deeper, you'd have to demo this:
Opposite side:
There is also this existing residential building just to the north-east:
Proposed site is the vacant land behind the chain link on the right of the image.
****
I'll take a look at the way the western buildings are laid out in a subsequent post.
Northern Light
Superstar
Looking at the westerly buildings which are a N-S orienation and quite narrow, the tower separation distance is a fairly normative 22.5M
But these are not massive floor plates:
The importance of this, if you accept the existing massing concept, is that again each tower is served by just 2 elevators. If you add height and units, you will have to add more elevators on already tight floor plates.
Here, let me be clear, I'm not arguing against more height, rather I'm showing how the choice to mass this site the way they have impacts on ability to deliver significantly greater height.
One can reasonably question some of the massing choices.
****
There are restrictions on effective total density based on road capacity, and sidewalk capacity. These can be addressed, if that's the desire.
For instance, both sites contain underground parking.
Both sites have employment use podiums.
These choices impact capacity analysis, more parking requires more road space, the employment choice impacts the way the ground floors are configured, as does heritage preservation at-grade, which in turn impacts the ability to create wider sidewalks.
I'm not arguing here, for/against more height, but just explaining some of the logic of how we get here.
But these are not massive floor plates:
The importance of this, if you accept the existing massing concept, is that again each tower is served by just 2 elevators. If you add height and units, you will have to add more elevators on already tight floor plates.
Here, let me be clear, I'm not arguing against more height, rather I'm showing how the choice to mass this site the way they have impacts on ability to deliver significantly greater height.
One can reasonably question some of the massing choices.
****
There are restrictions on effective total density based on road capacity, and sidewalk capacity. These can be addressed, if that's the desire.
For instance, both sites contain underground parking.
Both sites have employment use podiums.
These choices impact capacity analysis, more parking requires more road space, the employment choice impacts the way the ground floors are configured, as does heritage preservation at-grade, which in turn impacts the ability to create wider sidewalks.
I'm not arguing here, for/against more height, but just explaining some of the logic of how we get here.