Building heights access request

[Archivistower]

I've decided to make a request to the city under Access to Information Laws about building heights. Of course, I'll be happy to share any info I get, but I wonder if you could help by naming specific documents likely to have the information. I'm mostly intending to request data for older buildings, like the Harbour Castles, so the current planning documents are not what I'm after.

I remember someone mentioning a specific document that had heights, just don't remember what it is.

 

[mark simpson]

a bounded portofolio of buildings released annually by the former city's planning department (I remeber it as being unclear if the heights included mechanical or not)

architectural drawings would be best however not sure how readily available they are nowadays despite the aforementioned information law
zoning bylaws though they emphasize maximum allowable height

heck, I really don't know. I only went once to the urban affairs library and that was 3 to 4 years ago. Have the time but no love for the research to the point of a fear of stacks of paper

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think the city has all the building plans (which would include height info) but this accesse to this info has to be "authorized". Wylie might know more about this.

AoD

 

[Canuck 36]

If you hit a jackpot I'd be happy to collaborate with you and work my '400' list down to 300 feet or so.

 

[unimaginative2]

That's a fantastic idea! Finally we'll have an authoritative source on building heights. I don't see why they would be particularly jealous at guarding the information. It's in the public domain when the buildings are being planned, so I don't see why it would have to be kept confidential once they're completed.

 

[Archivistower]

The portfolio sounds interesting - maybe it would work for me. I've resigned myself to having an unpredictable mixture of heights with and without mechanical anyways. I'll try and follow up on that.

I actually don't need to see the plans, my request would be quite specific and indicate the heights of the buildings only.

More suggestions are welcome.

 

[interchange42]

Canuck - 328 feet is a nice round number...

in a better measurement system. 300 feet only makes sense in 1 country in the world. (You know, the one that's going to invade us in 20 years for our oil.)

42

 

[building babel]

I think information on basement depths - especially in the downtown core - would be interesting, too. It would be fascinating to see a graphic or a model of the city, based on that.

 

[Canuck 36]

Canuck - 328 feet is a nice round number...

in a better measurement system. 300 feet only makes sense in 1 country in the world. (You know, the one that's going to invade us in 20 years for our oil.)

It also makes sense to our former colonial overloards.

 

[urbanboyto]

perhaps the heights could be mapped onto a google mashup or google earth map.

 

[mark simpson]

^I'm sure in time Toronto's own mapping program will include heights, development permits, etc.

 

[Chuck100]

Having had to obtain information from the city myself, my thoughts are that the information has either been lost, is scattered among filing systems all over the city, or is so improperly filed that it is impossible to find. Nice idea, but I don't think that it is even possible to tabulate such a list.

Your best bet is to rent surveying equipment and use pythagorean theorem to calculate approximate building heights.

 

[Bogtrotter]

"I think information on basement depths - especially in the downtown core - would be interesting, too. It would be fascinating to see a graphic or a model of the city, based on that."

Montreal's subterranean urban space is significantly higher than toronto's in terms of public space with regards to subway depth and breadth of stations dimensions- indeed I think there would be no fair comparison in Canada by any stretch of the imagination. TO's advantage is efficiency, and given their current fiscal situation that seems to be the best option for this Canadian city at the current time.

 

[building babel]

Montrealers do it deeper?

Torontonians are shallow, by comparison?

I'd have thought our taller office towers would, correspondingly, have basements and parking garages that dig deeper into the earth.

 

[Observer Walt]

^ I'm not sure that the design of modern office or shopping complexes would differ that much from place to place. There's no point in digging deeper than necessary, if other factors (especially area of site) are equivalent.

OTOH, the Montreal subway is definitely deeper than most of Toronto's subway, possibly because of the big mountain in the centre of Mtl. Island, not to mention tunnels going under two major rivers and the Lachine Canal. And the size (volume) of subway stations in Montreal tends to be huge, no comparison to ours. None of the Montreal subway is above ground.

As someone who sometimes requests information at Toronto City Hall, I'll be very interested to hear how you make out. Staff at the Archives on Spadina Road, where I suspect much of this stuff resides, are generally helpful, but filing systems are not always as systematic as they should be. Some older stuff tends to "just disappear" sometimes.