Toronto Tableau Condominiums | 124.05m | 36s | Urban Capital | Wallman Architects

The_Architect said:
Think Toronto's first 1000-footer will be a condo?
Click to expand...

Well, if the proposed height restrictions go into effect, there will never be a 1000-footer in Toronto.

Ramoko said:
Let's review how the city would have developed under this proposed plan:

Four Seasons (93 metre reduction)
Casa (would not be built)
Ritz Carlton (30 metre reduction)
Aura (154 metre reduction)
Burano (11 metre reduction)
U Condos II (27 metre reduction)
L Tower (would not be built)
X (31 metre reduction)
X2 (53 metre reduction)
Couture (34 metre reduction)
250 Eaton Centre (14 metre reduction)
Uptown (would not be built)
Cyrstal Blu (would not be built)
880 Bay Street (35 metre reduction)
Cumberland Terrace (56 metre reduction)
151 Front Street (68 metre reduction)
FIVE (would not be built)
21 Avenue Road (36 metre reduction)
403 Bloor East (30 metre reduction)

God, I can only imagine how much more livable this city would be if all these towers were properly capped at decent god-fearing heights.
Click to expand...

And these are the absolute minimum reductions in height. The as-of-right reductions would be even more.

The only area in Toronto that would not have height restrictions due to this proposed policy would be a small area of the financial core -- which is already restricted by the NPS shadowing bylaw.
 
Tall Buildings Downtown Project

The Study identifies portions of major Downtown streets where tall buildings are considered to be appropriate. These streets are called “High Streets” and include streets such as Bay, Bloor, College, King and others. A range of heights is proposed for properties fronting onto High Streets. The six height range categories are: 47 to 77 meters; 62 to 107 meters; 77 to 137 meters; 92 to 152 meters; 107 to 182 meters; and 137 meters and up.

A three-tiered height limit is proposed by the Study as follows:

-a base building height to be established in the City’s Zoning By-law;
-an “as-of-right” height for High Street tall buildings, which is based on the prevailing heights of existing buildings along the given street segment; and
-a “maximum” height to be established in the Official Plan, which reflects a build out of the “Downtown Vision” and takes into account all recent development approvals.

The “maximum” height level can only be achieved through a site-specific rezoning that includes the provision of Section 37 community benefits with the Section 37 valuation being based on the additional increase in density that accompanies the increase in height between the “as-of-right” and the “maximum” height.
Click to expand...

Map of proposed maximum heights in downtown Toronto

As you can see, a LOT of the current tall buildings, under construction or proposed, would not be allowed under the provisions of this plan.
 
There are few areas in that brown zone where new towers 45 stories to unlimited could be developed. BA phase 2 should be reaching for the sky if that is the case. I guess FCP will be our tallest for years to come. What a shame! Toronto's skyline will just be one flat skyline of 45-50 story buildings. Boring!!!
 
How about at 427&QEW? Nothing there to stop tall buildings going up. However, the point of this plan is about relationships. A Page & Steele design (Chaz) shouldn't be next door to a superior aA design (Casa) especially when they don't talk to each other, with Chaz awkwardly positioned.... Time for a new thread.

Any brokers at the Tableau launch today UT members? How's it being received? The actual shape of the building is more like a chevron than a square, creating some crappy floorplans imo....
 
Who's driving this fear of heights and NIMBYism downtown? I keep picturing greying, anti-capitalist, leftover hippies who want 'their' Yorkville back.
 
There are actually a few things in this report that I can definitely get behind and support. Some of the recommendations about how buildings interact with each other, and the recommendation for establishing a Design Review Panel. I think I saw a discussion about this one in another thread, I’d give that one two thumbs up any day!

On the other hand it really disappoints me that we try so hard to box ourselves in (no pun intended). Just the sheer number of regulations affecting almost every decision a designer and developer would have to make almost gives me the impression that our council would rather have a computer program throw out a formulaic design that perfectly fits all the requirements. Where’s the room for creativity, novel design, engineering ingenuity, etc? I think I saw somewhere in there that the rationale behind the unlimited height ceiling in the CBD is because they don’t want to place restrictions on design creativity. That sounds counterintuitive in my opinion because I don’t just want to see creative design in one area of downtown but in all areas. In fairness these other areas like College Park for example and the Bloor/Yonge corners just to name a few are probably much better visual platforms for showcasing interesting and creative building designs at all height levels than the increasingly visually crowded central core. I feel like the pendulum’s swinging a bit too far to one side where they’re focusing almost exclusively with how the building meets the street (which is not necessarily a bad thing) but they seem to want to give up too much of how the building meets the sky. Like for example, I don’t think there was one word in this report about how they would like to see buildings topped off, unless I completely missed it. Would the architectural design and spire of the Trump for example fall under the proposed height restriction (say if it were to be build at Bloor/Yonge for example) or would a developer be allowed to top their buildings off with creative designs and not sacrifice the habitable height allotment to achieve that? Is this going to encourage more developments with flat roofs and fewer with architectural tops?

I don’t believe for a minute that height and great design are mutually exclusive. We can have both at the same time, but they should allow architects and developers the room to approach council with these designs which I fear restrictive height regulations are only going to convince them to shelve for a more welcoming time, if there ever will be. I look at that list a few posts ago and just cringe at how visually uninspiring our skyline would look if they were almost all the about same height and not a single one stood out. What a shame.

and yea maybe it is time for a new thread :)
 
Now this is more like it!!!
 
Is it safe to guess that our "city planners" do not live downtown or in Toronto?
 
I don't get the criticisims thus far. Height has little to nothing to do with great design and architects are not restricted to bland design just because they can't build higher than 49 floors or whatever.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top