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
 851     0 

New rules could limit Building Heights

For those who hate Adam Vaughan and think that he has some sort of personal hate-on for tall buildings, his comments in the Globe article should be illuminating.
 
I'll read into this more, but by reading the summary, I see nothing about hating tall buildings.

It's about appropriately placing buildings so we don't get a jumble of high rises. There's depth to the report that could be great if implemented properly, like the no new buildings shadows on first tier parks from 10 am to 4 pm.
 
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/Tall-buildings-map-downtownvision.pdf

Capping towers around Yonge-Dundas Square at 107-137 metres is beyond ridiculous. Capping Bay Street north of Dundas to 157 metres - also beyond ridiculous. Capping all of Bloor Street to 137 metres is simply asinine.

Capping 151 Front Street and the parking lot at the north east corner of Front and Simcoe to 107 metres - speechless.

I just have no idea what they're thinking.
 
Last edited:
Ramako said:
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/Tall-buildings-map-downtownvision.pdf

Capping towers around Yonge-Dundas Square at 107-137 metres is beyond ridiculous. Capping Bay Street north of Dundas to 157 metres - also beyond ridiculous. Capping all of Bloor Street to 137 metres is simply asinine.

Capping 151 Front Street and the parking lot at the north east corner of Front and Simcoe to 107 metres - speechless.

I just have no idea what they're thinking.
Click to expand...

i agree, if they go through with this then i think it'll be the worst move the city has made for a LONG time
 
I don't get it. The heights seem more than reasonable to me. 37 metres on Bloor would be asinine. 137 metres on Bloor Street is about double the average height currently on the street.

I'd love to here what you would consider suitable?
 
Last edited:
maestro said:
I don't get it. The heights seem more than reasonable to me. 37 metres on Bloor would be asinine. 137 metres on Bloor Street is about double the average height currently on the street.

I'd love to here what you would consider suitable?
Click to expand...

It seems asinine that someone might want to build a 150-170 metre tower at a site like the parking garage directly south of the new Four Seasons or the parking lot at the south west corner of Church & Bloor and be denied on the basis of height alone. Does that sound reasonable to you? Does 107 metres at Simcoe & Front seem reasonable to you?

Vaughan is right. This is a sledgehammer, not a scalpel. There are already several buildings in the Bloor Street neighbourhood, built, U/C or approved well over that height. It seems odd to me that they set the maximum below the height that the market has proven that the neighbourhood can achieve. It seems clear that it will stifle development. 137 metres may be twice the height of the average building in that neighbourhood, but is below the average height of new builds in that neighbourhood. There's no doubt that there is pressure on that area to build taller than 137 metres. It seems like they're taking current context into account but not the potential for significant growth.

Furthermore, the context of existing heights shouldn't be the primary concern in all situations. I'd argue that the site adjacent to Yonge & Dundas Square should have no height limit. What exactly are we protecting by capping towers at 137 metres there? The question in such areas shouldn't be what does the context dictate (as the context is constantly changing) but what can the site handle? The same thing applies to Bloor Street.
 
Last edited:
I also find it funny that the only place in the entire downtown that would be permitted to have have height beyond 182 metres is the only neighbourhood that is almost already entirely built up. Aside from a tiny handful of sites, nothing's going up between Yonge, Univsersity, Front and Queen unless something massive comes down. Say goodbye to 200 m + office towers in Toronto.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top