Stanley Condominiums | 138m | 41s | Tribute Communities | Core Architects

Thernan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
196
Reaction score
10
Given teh height of towers in close proximity, you would most likely be looking in the high 30s for height if the tower is in the southern end of the site. If it is in the north or they do a double tower design, then I would think they would top out at 30. 365 Church, which can boast a similar location is looking at 37s. Radio City, which is practically next door has 25s and 30s for their towers.

THe only aberration in the area is the one slated for behind the Primrose, which is asking for 50+s I think.
 

urbansuburban

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
30
Reaction score
1
Given teh height of towers in close proximity, you would most likely be looking in the high 30s for height if the tower is in the southern end of the site. If it is in the north or they do a double tower design, then I would think they would top out at 30. 365 Church, which can boast a similar location is looking at 37s. Radio City, which is practically next door has 25s and 30s for their towers.

THe only aberration in the area is the one slated for behind the Primrose, which is asking for 50+s I think.
365 church was already approved at the OMB for 30 storeys last year. So given this is a much more prominent corner, you know whatever being proposed will be much higher than 30. i wouldnt be surprised north of 40s.
 

DtTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
868
Reaction score
145
Location
CityPlace
365 church was already approved at the OMB for 30 storeys last year. So given this is a much more prominent corner, you know whatever being proposed will be much higher than 30. i wouldnt be surprised north of 40s.
I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Isn't this area still Wong-Tam jurisdiction? If so, there's very little hope. Remember, this is a councillor that has actually questioned the development of a parking garage, and the Holt Renfrew site due to "Shadowing concerns" over Jesse Ketchum PS.
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
15,283
Reaction score
8,365
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
No offence, but you live in Mississauga. Why are you advocating for less parking when it is a convenience that people are willing to pay for? I'm not implying that I want more parking, but if it's underground, I don't really care. If you choose not to drive, traffic jams won't have any effects on your commute. It's just funny (and ironic) that the people most opposed to parking live in the boonies.

Anyways, this building is in the heart of downtown, and I definitely don't think it should be midrise. I personally hate point towers, so I would love to see the block split up, and built with several larger buildings with minimum podium space. However, I realize that it will most likely be a point tower, and in that case, I'd like to see a minimum 4s podium with at least 1s retail (ideally, 2, with high ceilings) and at least 30s tower. There's no reason why this area should have more height restrictions than Regent Park.
Born and raised in this area, so I know it well.

Cities were built for people, not cars and time to get back to doing that.

I don't own a car and rent one when I need one. Use transit 100% for all my travels including business.

There are places for tall towers and midrise.

I hate square boxes.

You cannot put retail at the base of all building, as you will saturate the area and market to the point you have empty retail places or places coming and going because they can't survive due to the lack of income. Take a walk along Queen and Dundas from end to end and you will see what I am saying.

I can see Yonge having taller towers than Church or College.

Streets can only support X cars at X speed and where do you plan to put all those cars that exceed the max limit?? You have gridlock once you exceed the max limit.

If you walk around the area from Yonge to Parliament, Bloor to Dundas, you will find various buildings trying to rent out parking spaces, since the residents don't have cars to to fill those empty spaces. Rental building owners are loosing money by not filling those spots considering how old some of those building are. Same can be said down on the Queens Quay. Really, why do you need a car when things are within walking distance??

Not a fan of stand in the park towers.

If you travel Europe, most building are midrise with a higher density than towers and low podium.

I spend more time in Toronto than Mississauga most of the time.
 

dt_toronto_geek

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
10,942
Reaction score
101
Location
Downtown Toronto
I hope you're right, but I have my doubts. Isn't this area still Wong-Tam jurisdiction? If so, there's very little hope. Remember, this is a councillor that has actually questioned the development of a parking garage, and the Holt Renfrew site due to "Shadowing concerns" over Jesse Ketchum PS.
You have incorrectly stated that Councillor Wong-Tam is anti-development, she is not so get your facts straight. There are good planning principles in place here in Toronto which is, in part, what guides her. Also, there's someone assigned to each development that can share the heat, the City Planner assigned to the project.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
12,332
Reaction score
2,781
Location
South Parkdale
70 CARLTON ST
Site Plan Approval 13 135070 STE 27 SA Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Mar 18, 2013 --- --- --- ---
Site Plan Control (13-135070), Zoning By-Law Amendment (13-135076) and rental housing Demolition (13-135082) to erect a 38 storey tower atop of a 7 storey podium separated by a two-storey reveal comprising of 35149m2 of residential space 845m2 of retail space and 17m2 of institutional/other space. There will be a total of 202 parking spaces
 

ThomasJ

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
735
Reaction score
23
70 CARLTON ST
Site Plan Approval 13 135070 STE 27 SA Ward 27
- Tor & E.York Mar 18, 2013 --- --- --- ---
Site Plan Control (13-135070), Zoning By-Law Amendment (13-135076) and rental housing Demolition (13-135082) to erect a 38 storey tower atop of a 7 storey podium separated by a two-storey reveal comprising of 35149m2 of residential space 845m2 of retail space and 17m2 of institutional/other space. There will be a total of 202 parking spaces

is the parking lot included or is it just 70 and 72 carlton st?
 

Thernan

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
196
Reaction score
10
is the parking lot included or is it just 70 and 72 carlton st?
The foorprint of those two buildings is pretty small. I think for a building of that size they would need the parking lots too, no? Especially if they want to have decent setbacks on both Church and Carleton Streets.
 

TOfan696

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Messages
193
Reaction score
2
I was shown a rendering a few months back .... if there are no changes from what I saw this development is in my opinion the most unique proposal in the downtown (definitely not a box)
 

ThomasJ

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
735
Reaction score
23
I was shown a rendering a few months back .... if there are no changes from what I saw this development is in my opinion the most unique proposal in the downtown (definitely not a box)

did what you see involve the parking lot to the north or just the two properties on carlton st.?
 

Top