Toronto 1500 Bayview | 32.09m | 8s | Medallion | BDP Quadrangle

New information is updated in the database. The total unit changed from 153 units to 154 units. Finally, the height changed from 32.48m to 32.09m.
 
OLT settlement at 8 floors? Seems like a waste to go through all that effort and only have these buildings be 8 levels high.
 
Tim1234 said:
OLT settlement at 8 floors? Seems like a waste to go through all that effort and only have these buildings be 8 levels high.
Click to expand...

?

The building was already proposed at 8s.

So.... I'm confused by this statement.

It did not go to the OLT over height.

I outlined the reasons in my post on the previous page; the dispute was really about public realm and sidewalk width and the like.

1500 Bayview | 32.09m | 8s | Medallion | BDP Quadrangle

Community Consultation Meeting (online/telephone) Thursday, May 13, 2021 7:00 pm Webex registration link listed on: https://www.toronto.ca/community-people/get-involved/public-consultations/city-planning-consultations/
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

Did it need to go to the OLT? No, I don't think so anyway. I think the proponent and the City could have arrived at the same place w/o the OLT a bit sooner. But that was the developer's choice.
 
Tim1234 said:
Thanks. I guess I was

wondering why it wasn't proposed at 10 or 12 floors so it could house more people.
Click to expand...

If you look at the side profile of the render at the top of the thread, you'll see your answer.

This site was subject to the angular plane, which the builder expected.

Even w/that rule relaxed now, backing onto a side street of affluent SFH owners, in an area with no significant height precedents, they would face some of the same issues, though maybe with a bit more flexibility.

You can see the angle project up from the west side of the site, and how the floor plate gets smaller and smaller as you go up, meaning fewer and fewer units.

Additional floors here weren't really viable in the circumstances.
 
Tim1234 said:
Seems silly. Should've been built straight up to maximize efficiency and ease/speed of construction.
Click to expand...

That's not how it works.

There are guidelines, and still are for how a building relates to a street, and to a neighbouring property. While sometimes, as with the angular plane, it gets over-done, treated too officiously, and needs to be dialed back a bit, there are good reasons, in principle for these types of guidelines.

First off, virtually nobody likes an straight-up, 8s streetwall, not on a main street, not surrounded by 50s towers, never mind next to 2s SFH.

But even if people didn't mind the visual impact, long straight walls up from the ground create adverse wind conditions at grade. They can make it incredibly uncomfortable to walk, especially in winter. Buildings with a full-site footprint that are that tall or taller also block a lot of sunlight, which impedes trees and flowers from growing and can create desolate streetscapes.

Setbacks are a good thing, and in wide use around the world.

The angular plane, in this case, is rather over-done, and a good example of the need for some restraint/flexibility in such things, which is now the case. That might have resulted in a few additional units here and/or larger units; but in such circumstances an 8s street-wall straight up, would be a non-starter, as it should be.
 
Northern Light said:
That's not how it works.

There are guidelines, and still are for how a building relates to a street, and to a neighbouring property. While sometimes, as with the angular plane, it gets over-done, treated too officiously, and needs to be dialed back a bit, there are good reasons, in principle for these types of guidelines.

First off, virtually nobody likes an straight-up, 8s streetwall, not on a main street, not surrounded by 50s towers, never mind next to 2s SFH.

But even if people didn't mind the visual impact, long straight walls up from the ground create adverse wind conditions at grade. They can make it incredibly uncomfortable to walk, especially in winter. Buildings with a full-site footprint that are that tall or taller also block a lot of sunlight, which impedes trees and flowers from growing and can create desolate streetscapes.

Setbacks are a good thing, and in wide use around the world.

The angular plane, in this case, is rather over-done, and a good example of the need for some restraint/flexibility in such things, which is now the case. That might have resulted in a few additional units here and/or larger units; but in such circumstances an 8s street-wall straight up, would be a non-starter, as it should be.
Click to expand...
My guess is the immigrant family living in the unit you want to eliminate for your aesthetic setback would disagree w your argument here.
 
Tim1234 said:
My guess is the immigrant family living in the unit you want to eliminate for your aesthetic setback would disagree w your argument here.
Click to expand...

First off, there is no family living in a unit that does not exist.

Second, wind is not aesthetic, and trees combat climate change, mitigate flood risk and give you oxygen you breathe.

Third, your suggestion is either that the developer eat the high incremental cost of a shrinking floor plate (which they won't, meaning the unit will now be more expensive).

Finally, you seem to make the argument that 40-storey boxes can go on every block in the City even if the City becomes a barren, life-less scorching hot in summer, dangerously windy in winter place to live akin to hell on earth.

I feel entirely confident that the imaginary immigrant in your mind would rather live in a nice area; that they didn't come all the way to Canada to find a tree-less barren, windy hellscape.

Finally, I'd point out the reasonable likihood, in a City that is already majority foreign-born.......that the Family that owns that SFH, Immigrant; the City Planner Immigrant; the Developer, Immigrant.

All of us need housing, and pretty much all of us on this forum are pro having more of it, in already built up areas, at generally greater heights than what is there today.

But not at any cost, not in any form. If you're anti-climate change, and you don't want people falling dead from summer heat en mass, you're pro-tree; if you're pro-tree, your anti-shadow everywhere. You're also anti high wind.

It is possible to create more, more affordable rental and ownership based housing, which will meet the needs of many while also caring about quality of life.

If you feel different, that's fine, but please steer clear of arguments that seem designed to incite and inflame, and which are frankly not well informed.
 
Last edited:
My point is pretty basic and doesn’t require 6 paragraphs to explain. We need much more housing. Therefore when someone undertakes to redevelop a parcel of land, we should ensure that we maximize the housing yield per development. And yes I would prioritize this above trees, wind, shade, and someone’s SFH backyard cocktail hour view.
Northern Light said:
First off, there is no family living in a unit that does not exist.

Second, wind is not aesthetic, and trees combat climate change, mitigate flood risk and give you oxygen you breathe.

Third, your suggestion is either that the developer eat the high incremental cost of a shrinking floor plate (which they won't, meaning the unit will now be more expensive).

Finally, you seem to make the argument that 40-storey boxes can go on every block in the City even if the City becomes a barren, life-less scorching hot in summer, dangerously windy in winter place to live akin to hell on earth.

I feel entirely confident that the imaginary immigrant in your mind would rather live in a nice area; that they didn't come all the way to Canada to find a tree-less barren, windy hellscape.

Finally, I'd point out the reasonable likihood, in a City that is already majority foreign-born.......that the Family that owns that SFH, Immigrant; the City Planner Immigrant; the Developer, Immigrant.

All of us need housing, and pretty much all of us on this forum are pro having more of it, in already built up areas, at generally greater heights than what is there today.

But not at any cost, not in any form. If you're anti-climate change, and you don't want people falling dead from summer heat en mass, you're pro-tree; if you're pro-tree, your anti-shadow everywhere. You're also anti high wind.

It is possible to create more, more affordable rental and ownership based housing, which will meet the needs of many while also caring about quality of life.

If you feel different, that's fine, but please steer clear of arguments that seem designed to incite and inflame, and which are frankly not well informed.
Click to expand...
 
Tim1234 said:
My point is pretty basic and doesn’t require 6 paragraphs to explain. We need much more housing. Therefore when someone undertakes to redevelop a parcel of land, we should ensure that we maximize the housing yield per development. And yes I would prioritize this above trees, wind, shade, and someone’s SFH backyard cocktail hour view.
Click to expand...

I get your point; I fundamentally disagree completely and utterly as do most people.

Your idea would make the City entirely unlivable, literally, causing floods, extreme temperatures, significantly lower air quality and just a miserable state of existence.
 
Northern Light said:
I get your point; I fundamentally disagree completely and utterly as do most people.

Your idea would make the City entirely unlivable, literally, causing floods, extreme temperatures, significantly lower air quality and just a miserable state of existence.
Click to expand...
Like 12,15, or even 18 storeys would cause all this? Amazing insight.
 
Tim1234 said:
Like 12,15, or even 18 storeys would cause all this? Amazing insight.
Click to expand...

I have actually explained how to calculate ground-level wind and shadow impacts on this forum and linked people to modeling tools.

You would do well to tone down the snark and do some reading.

The issue is not any height over 8 storeys on a single site. You advocated for unlimited height with zero setbacks absolutely everywhere.

That's exactly, clearly what you said.

I took the time to thoughtfully explain to you why a decision was arrived at on a given site, with no snark or rudeness, this was met, on your part with endless hyperbole and rudeness.

I'm a nice guy, but for you.........you're on ignore.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top