News   Jun 25, 2024
10 Storeys Proposed to Float Over Annex Heritage Building
 1.3K     1 
News   Jun 25, 2024
Madison's Alias Ascending with Height Bump into Downtown Skies
 1K     0 
News   Jun 25, 2024
How Toronto Is Responding as the Fastest Growing City in North America
 1.7K     3 

Height Restrictions in Toronto

Personally i think it works better as a starting point than an endpoint. Besides you really can't expect the city to come up with a carte blanche now, can we?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Personally i think it works better as a starting point than an endpoint. Besides you really can't expect the city to come up with a carte blanche now, can we?

AoD
Click to expand...

No and I agree that it works better as a starting point than an endpoint. I'd have less of a problem with these guidelines if they were just that - guidelines - not strict height caps. I also think that the numbers that they've chosen are a bit on the low side, but that's just me.
 
City Council direct staff to use the Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Performance Standards Design Guidelines in the evaluation of all new and current tall building development proposals falling within the Guideline boundaries.
Click to expand...

In other words, you know all those tall proposals in the area covered by the guidelines? They're history. If they are taller than the upper limits for that location under the guidelines (which includes a LOT of current proposals, as the height limits are well below the current heights being proposed and built) they will be either drastically cut back or entirely rejected. The proposed guidelines have NO room for compromise, unlike the current system.

Oh well, the boom was nice while it lasted, but I thought that it would be ended by a worsening economy, not by the City's own policies.
 
Last edited:
Mongo:

What makes you think that a) there is no room for projects to be approved by the city even if they contravene this policy and b) that appeals to the OMB will all of a sudden cease, or cease to be effective? I think it is good to have some kind of document to set forth general expectations.

AoD
 
Last edited:
if these rules don't get changed then toronto will always be dull and boring. tall buildings make cities exciting and cool and help make cities money through tourism. Tall buildings help draw tourism to chicago and new york and could help toronto one day as well. I hope the toronto haters at city hall smarten up and realize what they are doing, because they are ensuring that toronto will always look like a large winnipeg. :confused:
 
Tourists visit a city because of attractions, high quality urban realm and other reasons - not for the sheer number of buildings, however banal, above x metres high.

AoD
 
johnwood said:
if these rules don't get changed then toronto will always be dull and boring. tall buildings make cities exciting and cool and help make cities money through tourism. Tall buildings help draw tourism to chicago and new york and could help toronto one day as well. I hope the toronto haters at city hall smarten up and realize what they are doing, because they are ensuring that toronto will always look like a large winnipeg. :confused:
Click to expand...

Right, because in the future tall buildings like Ten York will draw more visitors to TO than the ROM/AGO or a concert/game at ACC/Rogers.
 
It would be a bonehead move by council to impose any height restrictions right now while Toronto is in a construction boom...it will happen one day, but i doubt ASAP.
Gee, it would be like telling developers and investors..that we dont need them, and their money anymore...let alone the thousands of jobs related to the 4 billion dollar Toronto construction industry that will be lost

I just hope that on Feb 14 this flip-flop city council doesnt send the wrong message to the construction industry
 
i do think people from smallers areas sometimes visit "tall" cities just to experience it. i know it sounds crazy but there are people i have met that just wanted to see new york in person. what did they see when they got there. basically no museums no gallerys no shows, but shopping and buildings. it may be stupid but i do think people associate "tall" buildings with the big city and as a result its "coolness" maybe its from all the movies we watch that take place in big cities with big buildings. either way i dont think you can dismiss the desire for it by simply making fun of people who like big buildings. i also dont think the majority of these people are likely to come to city to go to the museum or the art gallery
 
I have to agree with sixrings, I was raised in a small town and it was always a huge thrill to visit "the big city" and see the tall buildings.

When I think about it, this proposed set of quidelines might be a negotiating move -- the City concedes much greater building height limits in exchange for the developers' support on the rest of the policy -- which would be a win-win in my opinion. I like most of the suggested policy, just not the (far too low) height limits.
 
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but what is stopping a developer from proposing a 300 metre skyscraper at Yonge and Dundas for example and just applying for a rezoning application? These guidelines will only be enforced through the Official Plan and zoning bylaws, but theoretically, city staff could still approve the development even if it exceeds the height. This happens all the time. Is it just that city staff are going to be more strict?
 
^Yeah, I agree with Marcanadian. Whatever barriers exist to erecting a really tall building are pretty weak. If a developer wanted to build a 400m tall building tomorrow, I don't see anyone/thing stopping them. The fact remains that no developer has built anything taller than the 978ft tall, 36 year old FCP - even in this unprecedented boom.

I could be mistaken, but I remember hearing somewhere (on this forum) that there is a point of diminishing marginal returns in building height. There comes a height - and we might be getting close - where a tower isn't built to maximize economic returns but to boost an ego. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but our development culture is not exactly known for being risqué. I mean, we have developers proposing 70 storey versions of the 50 storey "cd case" tower they built last year. It's not exactly New York city ca. 1929, Dubai or Pudong over here.
 
Last edited:
^^ Well I just reread the study, and one of the 'regulations' said that the only way a developer could meet the maximum allowable height is to go through Section 37 and apply for a rezoning. This basically means that there is no mechanism to allow for the maximum height to be surpassed in any way without contravening these rules. The study sounds really serious in terms of implementation. There won't be any leeway unless the city starts accepting bribes (which we've done before in relation to height increases). So if the study is approved as a series of regulations as opposed to guidelines, it'll become very strict and enforceable. I sent off an email to the Councillors on the TEYCC basically saying that these conditions were too restrictive and allow for little flexibility. I'm hoping they'll be implemented as 'recommendations' or 'guiding principles' rather than rules and regulations.
 
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top