Toronto 100 Davenport | 72m | 19s | 100 Davenport Ltd | Scott Shields

I don't find planning particularly against height. Planning has encouraged several developments to go taller slimmer towers over fat boxes when the opportunity made sense. Guidelines are also just guidelines. There's very little in the way holding back a developer's wishes. Height is pretty much irrelevant. It's usually fat and boxy at 25, 50 or, 100 storeys here.

A tremendous amount of time, money and, energy has gone into the rezoning of these lands. All parties agreed that phase 2 would be mid-rise. Now, years later, Diamante has come back with a new vision that is 4 times bigger than what everyone previously agreed on. It's just a gigantic waste for an overworked planning department Let's not get too wrapped up in the tower design either. It can easily be swapped out before applying for site plan approval.

I've always taken the position a strong vision that developers adhere to makes a great city. It's something we don't have here. This proposal is the perfect example.
 
maestro said:
I don't find planning particularly against height. Planning has encouraged several developments to go taller slimmer towers over fat boxes when the opportunity made sense. Guidelines are also just guidelines. There's very little in the way holding back a developer's wishes. Height is pretty much irrelevant. It's usually fat and boxy at 25, 50 or, 100 storeys here.

A tremendous amount of time, money and, energy has gone into the rezoning of these lands. All parties agreed that phase 2 would be mid-rise. Now, years later, Diamante has come back with a new vision that is 4 times bigger than what everyone previously agreed on. It's just a gigantic waste for an overworked planning department Let's not get too wrapped up in the tower design either. It can easily be swapped out before applying for site plan approval.

I've always taken the position a strong vision that developers adhere to makes a great city. It's something we don't have here. This proposal is the perfect example.
Click to expand...

I know personally of a number of instances in which Planning has communicated to developers that height reductions are essential to winning approval, and a less anecdotal version of that is reflected in much of the responses on the Dev App site. Definitely true that it's not a uniform dictate across the board, though.
 
I will agree planning can get a little too wrapped in height. That said, you're only giving one side of the picture. These rezoning submissions are forever pushing the boundaries of what's acceptable. Last year there was one at 45 FAR! That planning is asking for so many to tone it down reflected through height reduction shouldn't be concluded that planning is against height. Otherwise, it would be uniform across the board.

Perhaps their obsession with height is in part to what I said previously. Almost all proposals are fat, high coverage, boxy towers regardless if they are 25, 50 or 100 storeys. Height is basically an interchangeable term with density.
 
Almost all proposals are fat, high coverage boxy towers? What's your evidence for that claim?

Most proposals from the last several years have been around the 750 sq m floor plate mark, right on the City's guideline, wither they're 25 or 50 storeys, so if that's a bit fat at 25 storeys, (not especially to my mind), it's most definitely not at 50 storeys, where most of the tall towers are these days. The 90 storey ones tend to be closer to 900 sq metres in size, but that's just as slim proportionally.

In this particular case, the floor plate here is 494 sq m, so not fat at all, and if they only ever get a mid-rise here, no-one will care if it's 810 sq m, the size of the proposed podium floor in the Cardinal design.

42
 
The hearing has been set down for 15 days commencing Monday, February, 26, 2018 at 10 a.m. at:

Ontario Municipal Board
655 Bay Street
16th Floor
Toronto, ON
 
The latest GYRA newsletter asserts that the developer has reduced the ask to 29 storeys here.
 
That's a good move. Despite that, I have no doubt the Planning will still be against the proposal: the site has a complicated planning history which includes shifting density to other adjacent Diamante work.

42
 
interchange42 said:
That's a good move. Despite that, I have no doubt the Planning will still be against the proposal: the site has a complicated planning history which includes shifting density to other adjacent Diamante work.

42
Click to expand...

Yeah, and to that point, GYRA noted that it and fully all of the neighbouring condo corps strongly oppose the development, with only the Florian (also Diamante, right?) condo corp being supportive.
 
Interesting- a shorter, tamer version of 100 Davenport?

2018-01-31_OMB4.jpg

Work — Douglas Cardinal Architect

www.djcarchitect.com www.djcarchitect.com
 
I don't understand the design. The podium portion looks interesting (classic Douglas Cardinal) but the floral crown looks like it could easily be executed very, very poorly. It makes me nervous that this is going to be so prominent on Bay St's northern view terminus. Crossing my fingers that they'll get it right.

I also hope this and 50 Scollard help bridge the gap between Yorkville & Davenport's retail/pedestrian areas.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top