Ziggy
Active Member
The one that springs to mind is the original design for the new city hall which was moved up to St. Clair to become the Imperial Oil headquarters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Oil_Building_(Toronto)
Toronto Picasso Condos | 128.62m | 39s | Mattamy Homes | Teeple Architects
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
The one that springs to mind is the original design for the new city hall which was moved up to St. Clair to become the Imperial Oil headquarters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Oil_Building_(Toronto)
adma
Superstar
But I've already pointed out to you that NYC is landmarking the same kinds of structures and districts that Toronto is. So, if "Communism is coming", they're just as Communist there as we are here.
And the funny thing about Gansevoort is that...in the end, "heritage" is a secondary, if not tertiary or beyond, matter in the planning board's decision. At least, there's virtually nothing right on site that'd be sorely missed. It's all to do with physical context, and that's got little or nothing to do with heritage--indeed, if one looks back upon many past neighbourhood battles versus developers or transportation engineers, what mattered was that they were neighbourhoods under threat, period. Not "heritage neighbourhoods" (at least, not at the time). Jane Jacobs was a neighbourhood activist before she was a heritage activist.
Given the nature of the proposal, I suspect the present decision is more of a rote technicality, i.e. the scale of the proposal would have been auto-rejected even if the stylistic vocabulary were Robert Stern retro. So, just another hurdle to jump, another detail to work on through legalities, etc.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
Rendering of the Sketchup model I did of the proposal. This is now included in my 'Unbuilt Toronto' Flickr set.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
That looks great, Wylie!
I can't help but wish that this had been a render for Bay-Adelaide - that would have added some pep to the downtown core.
I can't help but wish that this had been a render for Bay-Adelaide - that would have added some pep to the downtown core.
Solaris
Senior Member
City Planning Refusal Report
Planning staff report recommending refusal of this TAS proposal ... one reason in particular being "The development exceeds the 30 metre as-of-right height by 91 metres. It has a density of 19.5x the area of the lot, exceeding development densities on the City’s most intense corridors such as the Shangri-La on University Avenue and the proposed development at
One Bloor Street East..."
To be considered by Toronto + East York Community Council on Janaury 13 2009:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-17928.pdf
Planning staff report recommending refusal of this TAS proposal ... one reason in particular being "The development exceeds the 30 metre as-of-right height by 91 metres. It has a density of 19.5x the area of the lot, exceeding development densities on the City’s most intense corridors such as the Shangri-La on University Avenue and the proposed development at
One Bloor Street East..."
To be considered by Toronto + East York Community Council on Janaury 13 2009:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-17928.pdf
cdr108
Senior Member
I wonder which concern is more critical ... the height, density or both?
IIRC 1BE has density of 16x area of lot, I don't recall Shangri-La's.
If Gansevorrt were to reduce its density by 20% and we assume that the building were a uniform sized tower throughout its height that would put it at ~97m = (121m - 20%);
still 60m exceeding the 30 metre as-of-right height but it's good for 30s.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
From the
Rezoning and Site Plan Applications – Final Report
As the applicant is proposing a building that is 123.3 metres in height, staff are recommending refusal of the application on the basis of building height, which in conjunction with other characteristics of the proposal, creates a development that does not respect the fundamental policies of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. The proposal will result in a negative physical presence that may prompt additional pressures for similar future developments in this area and further erode the historic physical character of the area
Why do i get the feeling that the dozen or so other hi-rise proposals that are planned for this same district will most likely all be turned down by the city.
Rezoning and Site Plan Applications – Final Report
As the applicant is proposing a building that is 123.3 metres in height, staff are recommending refusal of the application on the basis of building height, which in conjunction with other characteristics of the proposal, creates a development that does not respect the fundamental policies of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. The proposal will result in a negative physical presence that may prompt additional pressures for similar future developments in this area and further erode the historic physical character of the area
Why do i get the feeling that the dozen or so other hi-rise proposals that are planned for this same district will most likely all be turned down by the city.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Probably because they would be failing to respect the fundamental policies of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan.
Maybe you can mention the dozen or so "hi-rise" proposals you make reference to.
Architecturefan
Active Member
Without knowing exactly what proposals your referring to, I think that most of the proposals in King-Spadina currently going through the approvals process are located on King Street or very near to King Street where there are already existing buildings and approved buildings with heights of 30 storeys plus.
One of the City's main issues with this particular proposal is that its located in an area where its immediate surroundings are much lower-rise. I'm not saying that I agree with the City's position, however I also don't think that their position on this proposal should be used to draw any conclusions relating to other proposals within King-Spadina
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Here are some that i know about,there are many more in the planning stage.335 King w,100 John st,21 Widmer st,,199 Richmond st w.27 Heath st,,117 Peter st,210 Simcoe st,134 Peter st,The Charlie,etc.
Regarding The King-Spadina Secondary Plan does the future Bell Lightbox and M5V Condo tower not fall in that district?They seem to being build beside a neighbourhood of buildings that were no more than 30 meters tall.
The 27 Heath Street proposal is in an entirely different area, but yes, otherwise, there are lots of proposals for the are that do not fit the City's vision for King Spadina.
It is possible that all of the others you mention will therefore be recommended for rejection by the City's Planning Department. Being recommended for rejection by the planners, however, is not an automatic death sentence for the projects; City Council has not always followed the recommendation. Also, Council is likely to have a difficult time defending King Spadina's secondary plan now since both Boutique's developer and M5V's developer were able to successfully argue before the OMB that Festival Tower set a precedent for the area when it was allowed to rise as high as it is going.
While the City argues that Festival Tower is on the edge of the area, not the middle of it, it is moving that edge inward by allowing Festival Tower to go ahead. Subsequently east of Spadina I believe the City will have a tough time keeping the taller towers out. The economy may slow the Manhattanization of the area however...
42
It is possible that all of the others you mention will therefore be recommended for rejection by the City's Planning Department. Being recommended for rejection by the planners, however, is not an automatic death sentence for the projects; City Council has not always followed the recommendation. Also, Council is likely to have a difficult time defending King Spadina's secondary plan now since both Boutique's developer and M5V's developer were able to successfully argue before the OMB that Festival Tower set a precedent for the area when it was allowed to rise as high as it is going.
While the City argues that Festival Tower is on the edge of the area, not the middle of it, it is moving that edge inward by allowing Festival Tower to go ahead. Subsequently east of Spadina I believe the City will have a tough time keeping the taller towers out. The economy may slow the Manhattanization of the area however...
42
H
Hydrogen
Guest
As interchange 42 has indicated, the official plan of the city can be over-ruled by the OMB. If that was to happen constantly then the planning efforts of the city would not be worth the paper they were printed on. Some tower foamers would love that as they would have their wish for nothing but tall buildings satisfied - regardless of the context. The King-Spadina area is being re-developed for mixed use, so it's worth taking some time and understanding to make sure that this part of the city is re-developed properly. It can be so much more than just a potential location for lots of skyscrapers.
King west of Spadina is also under increasing pressure as well. Both Allied and Freed (and eventually Great Gulf) are applying for buildings considerably taller than what is allowed by the K-S Secondary Plan, and if these are built at the desired height of the developers, other ever taller structures will certainly bring pressure to redevelop the existing brick buildings that make the area a unique part of the city. Their future could either be a facadectomy or demolition.
Slapping up ever taller buildings may satisfy your desires, but it does not automatically result in appropriate or good planning.
Architecturefan
Active Member
Also what's relevant, is not what currently exists but what is approved to be built, which in the area surrounding most of the proposal's mentioned are a butt load of very tall buildings.
Are there any from that list of nearby buildings that have been approved though? Other than Boutique, Festival Tower and M5V of course?
42
42
Architecturefan
Active Member
you can add Charlie to that list too, but thats enough in a relatively small area as far as precedent is concerned