Toronto 372 Yonge | 278m | 85s | Yonge & Gerrard Partners | DIALOG

TossYourJacket said:
The real building will inevitably be much uglier, and probably involve the demolition of the heritage building on the corner, given this is Toronto after all.
Click to expand...
You could be right. But this also doesn't stop them from building something even better to meet the objections made.
 
Preliminary Report to the next meeting of TEYCC on October 15th, 2020.


Staff will continue to assess:

1601558435095.png
 
In these tough pandemic times i wish the city would take more time to see how to get these hundreds of developments approved than refused
... after all these future bldgs. would bring in much needed property taxes,

Say each building pays the city roughly, (3 - 5K/unit x 400 units) = approx. 1.6 million a year in property tax
multiply that by approx. 100 known refusals = $160 million/year in taxes,
would be nice chump change yearly for a bankrupt city
 
Automation Gallery said:
In these tough pandemic times i wish the city would take more time to see how to get these hundreds of developments approved than refused
... after all these future bldgs. would bring in much needed property taxes,

Say each building pays the city roughly, (3 - 5K/unit x 400 units) = approx. 1.6 million a year in property tax
multiply that by approx. 100 known refusals = $160 million/year in taxes,
would be nice chump change yearly for a bankrupt city
Click to expand...

Honestly, why would you post something so farcical?

There are not 100 refusal reports per year on major developments.

That would be be 10 across every set of community council agendas.

That is not happening routinely.

The number wouldn't even be 1/2 that.

Moreover, on a goodly number of refusal reports a settlement is ultimately reached.

What's built is typically still a very significant proposal.

****

Moreover, the City is not remotely bankrupt.

In this Covid year, it might be, but for bail-outs by higher orders of government but those have happened or are forthcoming.

The City routinely runs surpluses.

I would argue for raising more revenue to be sure, in order to catch up on needed investments in housing, transit and parks etc.

As well as to increase operating budgets to support better services and lower user fees.

But bankruptcy. Come on............
 
"Heritage this, Heritage that." Just because a building is old doesn't mean it has any significance. I'm tired of random brick buildings being treated as palaces by the city. In the end, every new skyscraper in the city will end up with random brick buildings at the bottom, It's getting tiresome. I wonder what was torn down when these things were built. Cities change, they evolve, we don't need to hold on to every little insignificant building.
 
TheSixLover said:
"Heritage this, Heritage that." Just because a building is old doesn't mean it has any significance. I'm tired of random brick buildings being treated as palaces by the city. In the end, every new skyscraper in the city will end up with random brick buildings at the bottom, It's getting tiresome. I wonder what was torn down when these things were built. Cities change, they evolve, we don't need to hold on to every little insignificant building.
Click to expand...


May I suggest your outrage is a bit inflated, and misplaced?

First off, the applicant is proposing to save the facades; not the City.

The City is simply noting that it is standard WHEN saving a heritage facade to make that more prominent at street level vs any tower above.

***

Perhaps more importantly, you may wish to read Project End's post here:

372 Yonge | 278m | 85s | Yonge & Gerrard Partners | DIALOG

Finally something that got class for this intersection ! This building looks like a structure that would have been developed in Eurasia ! Not a box It's a value exercise. It's not real.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

Which indicates this is likely not a real proposal; but simply an effort to upzone to increase value.

The City also notes that in its comments by suggesting the footprint of the site simply isn't reasonable for a development of this scale, irrespective of heritage.

***

Breathe. The City is not your enemy, even if you disagree with some of its decisions (we all do).

There is also room to disagree about which heritage is worth protecting.

But perhaps save that for a more tangible proposal; and one where the City and Applicant are on opposing sides.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
May I suggest your outrage is a bit inflated, and misplaced?

First off, the applicant is proposing to save the facades; not the City.

The City is simply noting that it is standard WHEN saving a heritage facade to make that more prominent at street level vs any tower above.

***

Perhaps more importantly, you may wish to read Project End's post here:

372 Yonge | 278m | 85s | Yonge & Gerrard Partners | DIALOG

Finally something that got class for this intersection ! This building looks like a structure that would have been developed in Eurasia ! Not a box It's a value exercise. It's not real.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

Which indicates this is likely not a real proposal; but simply an effort to upzone to increase value.

The City also notes that in its comments by suggesting the footprint of the site simply isn't reasonable for a development of this scale, irrespective of heritage.

***

Breathe. The City is not your enemy, even if you disagree with some of its decisions (we all do).

There is also room to disagree about which heritage worth protecting.

But perhaps save that for a more tangible proposal; and one where the City and Applicant are on opposing sides.
Click to expand...
Appreciate the info! thx.
 
The Preservationist said:
If I had my way on Yonge Street I'd keep all the old brick store frontages and force developers to build their towers with a 10m setback. Set back from the street they could make them all 250m tall for all I care.
Click to expand...

All is just a bit too strong for me.

I'll second your motion if it comes with a 'most' variant.

LOL

There are a couple of hapless eyesores in the lot.
 
Northern Light said:
All is just a bit too strong for me.

I'll second your motion if it comes with a 'most' variant.

LOL

There are a couple of hapless eyesores in the lot.
Click to expand...

Well yes, there are a few places where some improvisation would be required as some of the current street scapes are a bit lacking. As for the towers sure vary them up. Really liked the new condo (5 condo) set back west side of Yonge just north of Wellesley with the street front store restoration.
 
Last edited:
The Preservationist said:
If I had my way on Yonge Street I'd keep all the old brick store frontages and force developers to build their towers with a 10m setback. Set back from the street they could make them all 250m tall for all I care.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what OPA183 prescribes. Minus the 250m, though. Unfortunately once that 10m is factored in, most Yonge sites are neutered so infinite height isn't the kind of panacea for setback loss that it may seam.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top