Toronto 159SW Condos | 118.87m | 36s | Alterra | Richmond Architects

35 storeys total.
 
Because the three storey height reduction from the original proposal will improve the quality of life for all residents of Toronto. Good job planners showing this developer who's boss.

On a serious note, I like the inclusive affordable units that Habitat brings to the table. I would like to see more of this.
 
Why does the city waste taxpayer money developing planning guidelines like the Downtown Tall Building Study?

This site is over 25% deficient in total area for a tall building, by the City's OWN recently approved guidelines... it isn't even close to achieving the minimum setbacks required, yet this is overlooked in one sentence:"the development meets most guidelines."

If every project is going to be treated as a case study, what is the point of attempting to standardize planning guidelines? Section 37 funds trumps all.
 
Roy G Biv said:
Why does the city waste taxpayer money developing planning guidelines like the Downtown Tall Building Study?

This site is over 25% deficient in total area for a tall building, by the City's OWN recently approved guidelines... it isn't even close to achieving the minimum setbacks required, yet this is overlooked in one sentence:"the development meets most guidelines."

If every project is going to be treated as a case study, what is the point of attempting to standardize planning guidelines? Section 37 funds trumps all.
Click to expand...

I think they want to have the Downtown Tall Buildings Study as a baseline to help guide decisions, but given that every project inevitable gets approved above what the study calls for, it seems absurd that the limits called for in the study are as low as they are.
 
Ramako said:
I think they want to have the Downtown Tall Buildings Study as a baseline to help guide decisions, but given that every project inevitable gets approved above what the study calls for, it seems absurd that the limits called for in the study are as low as they are.
Click to expand...

My guess is the purpose of the guidelines and its "Performance Standards" are for negotiation. The City/councillor can tell a developer they are deficient in certain areas, and then ask for compensatory Section 37 funds. It's a game, so call it what it is and stop pretending like Guidelines are supposed to mean anything. It is embarassing that Staff deems a site like this as severely inappropriate for a tall building, and then approves a tall building.
 
Roy G Biv said:
My guess is the purpose of the guidelines and its "Performance Standards" are for negotiation. The City/councillor can tell a developer they are deficient in certain areas, and then ask for compensatory Section 37 funds. It's a game, so call it what it is and stop pretending like Guidelines are supposed to mean anything. It is embarassing that Staff deems a site like this as severely inappropriate for a tall building, and then approves a tall building.
Click to expand...

well, they are called 'guidelines' for a reason. they have no legal planning status aside from the fact that its a wish list of what they would like to see. They will use it as a hammer against small developers but the big developers can pretty much ignore it. I always love how planners leave out the salient arguements that dont fit the position for one application that is staff supported and than use it in another which is not supported by staff.
 
fedplanner said:
I have not read the thread. Is anything in here new info?

http://www.toronto.ca/planning/stjamestown/159_wellesley.htm
Click to expand...

That link doesn't appear to contain the Final Report.


The developer must sign a "Tower Separation Agreement" with the owner of the three brown houses directly South on Sherbourne. My guess is that this means they need to pay them money to agree to never build a tower on their lot. That condition would have to be passed on to future owners of the lot. The two parties couldn't come to a sale agreement, so I wonder how this will go.
 
Kristyn Wong-Tam has just asked Community Council for support to pass the zoning amendment in favour of this building…

and passed.

42
 
Sorry, I don't remember the particulars. They were pretty subtle changes I believe… no change to the thread title for example!

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top