News   Jun 14, 2024
Dual High-Rises and Production Studio Space Proposed in the Port Lands
 2.4K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Exchange District Condos' Four Towers Progressing by Square One
 1.7K     1 
News   Jun 14, 2024
News Roundup for June 14, 2024
 853     0 

Height Restrictions in Toronto

If these arbitrary height restrictions (dreamed up by bureaucrats with too much time on their hands) had been in effect the last 10 years the MAXIMUM height of the following projects would have been reduced dramatically::mad:

1 Bloor East : 45 st
Aura : 35 st
Four Seasons 25 st
Shangri La 45 st

Make no mistake about it. The purpose of this study is to put a ceiling on maximum heights. Just as Toronto was getting over its fear of tall buildings we have a bunch of bureaucrats trying to shove this garbage on us.

If you are opposed to the implementation of anti-development height restrictions don't forget to email Mayor Ford (and for good measure his brother Doug ). The councilors who make up the East York City Council are - for the most part - left wing and anti-development (the two almost always go hand in hand). Sending emails to this group is all but useless I am afraid.

This study was commissioned under the David Miller administration and I am disappointed to see that under Ford money is still being wasted on this. :mad:
 
Last edited:
[video=youtube;ogQjuc61EGU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogQjuc61EGU&feature=related[/video]when i think of toronto in the future with this height restriction i think of this youtube vid. ;)
 
1 Bloor East : 45 st
Shangri La 45 st

Make no mistake about it. The purpose of this study is to put a ceiling on maximum heights. Just as Toronto was getting over its fear of tall buildings we have a bunch of bureaucrats trying to shove this garbage on us.
Click to expand...

Taking 1 Bloor as example - a quote from the p. 19-20 of the report:

Height Peak
The Consultant's Study identified a height peak at the intersection of Bloor Street and Yonge Street that would permit an as-of-right height of 137 metres (45 storeys) and a maximum height of 242 metres (80 storeys), based on the City having identified a height peak in this area in area specific Official Plan Amendment No. 211 for the Bloor Yorkville Midtown Area. The policies attributed in to this official plan amendment and its accompanying urban design guidelines which map the built form height peaks and ridges for this area, do not provide specific heights for this intersection. Staff has chosen to remove this specific numeric height reference and rely on the underlying heights
provided by the Consultant in the Downtown Vision Height Map for this intersection as follows: 62 to 107 metres (20 to 35 storeys) on Yonge Street and 77 to 137 metres (30 to 50 storeys) on Bloor Street. Staff recommend that an appropriate height range for this intersection would be 137 m - 212 m (45 to 70 storeys). Additional height provided by the subway node guideline noted above, could also be taken into account.
Click to expand...

45 storeys is a minimum.

And if you take a look at the map on p. 69 of the report, you'd notice that Shangri La actually belongs to the no height limits category.

If you are opposed to the implementation of anti-development height restrictions don't forget to email Mayor Ford (and for good measure his brother Doug ). The councilors who make up the East York City Council are - for the most part - left wing and anti-development (the two almost always go hand in hand). Sending emails to this group is all but useless I am afraid.

This study was commissioned under the David Miller administration and I am disappointed to see that under Ford money is still being wasted on this.
Click to expand...

This is really quite laughable - considering a good chunk of the so called supertalls are approved during the tenure of David Miller - and the composition of the TEYCC during his time are probably even more left than it is now. Interesting to see how your ideology keep crawling into things.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Hi there,

I have three questions:
1) Is anyone planning to attend this meeting on Feb 14?
2) What are the height restrictions for the secondary areas outlined in the report (as this covers most of SouthCore and am wondering what implications, if any, this study will have for that area)?
3) What height restrictions are there for areas in the core that are not highlighted at all – meaning they’re completely blank white on the diagram? For example, if one was to look at the map on page 70, most of the area East of Yonge
Street and North of Carlton Street is blank…does it mean those areas were not taken into account in the study and hence are subject to case-by-case approval regarding height (subject to NIMBYism of course)?

Thanks.
 
Don't just think of this as maximum height limits. Because they've also limited the size of new towers to around 8,000 square foot floor plates (they've been at this for some time) it is actually a pretty significant density cap for many sites. The size of developments will shrink, the intensification of downtown will slow down and the value of undeveloped / unapproved land will drop.
 
Since the project began buildings have been approved that exceed the reports guidelines which puts the report "out of date". There must be a starting point to get this situation under control in Toronto, and this is it. Projects that have already been approved can be grandfathered, presuming the report is adapted. I have some reservations about some areas of the report, but I'm not a Planner so I'm sure there are reasons why areas I believe could be intensified with higher buildings, cannot.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
There must be a starting point to get this situation under control in Toronto, and this is it. .
Click to expand...

Looking of whats happening around the world, i doubt this is the right time to slam the brakes on investment..
And Yeah, if your sending the wrong message to developers......, dont tell me that the City of Toronto will still keep on building at the same pace,
Im hoping council talks it over and puts these GUIDLINES to rest for the next decade or two.
 
Last edited:
Since we are out of sprawl land and brownfield are getting smaller, the only place we are going to put more people into cities is up.

With a few exceptions, there should be not height restriction and that should be left up to developers and construction company's.

There needs to be more focus on the base of the towers as well how they step back from the street edge. Having a sheer wall is great to keep cost down, but they become a wind tunnel for people on the street.

I am not a supporter of square boxes with no life to them in appearance nor material. All glass building are boring and plain looking since the standard cookie cutter designs are used over and over using the same colours.

Building today that become 35-50 storey tall, will become low-rise buildings down the road in time.

Guidelines are guidelines, but lets think outside the box first when developing them as well look at what taking place around the world.

For the largest city in Canada, we can't build a building over 80 floors, let alone 100 and that a shame.

It's taken how long to get a building taller than First Canadian Place and what were the height limits back then???................Oh!!!!!!! we don't have one yet......
 
Everyone talks about sprawl, nobody is talking about retrofitting it (i.e. tracts of single detached housing) for higher density - which is in itself pandering to suburban NIMBYism.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Everyone talks about sprawl, nobody is talking about retrofitting it (i.e. tracts of single detached housing) for higher density - which is in itself pandering to suburban NIMBYism.

AoD
Click to expand...

Now you are really getting in the NIMBYism problem. There are parts of Toronto and very few where you should not do this.

For the rest of Toronto as well outside of Toronto, this should be the marching orders to follow.

I should be finished later on today up loading the photos from March 27 and the last few photos will show up in a Mississauga thread where your comment needs to happen. There is an aerial view you will love as even the propose development still doesn't work.
 
drum:

I just get annoyed when people on here throw terms like NIMBYism around when it's a matter of shaving a few floors off a tower, but wouldn't say a peep about those single detached tracts that takes up vast amounts of land where densification would be hugely beneficial. It smacks of hypocrisy.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top