Maybe I'm jumping the gun too. But I can't see how they are going to do all that interior restoration work when the tower is taking most of its floor space save for the external heritage walls.I may have spoke too soon @Towered
They appear to be contemplating partially re-instating some of the original interiors (but they would be demolished first)
That does not change my opinion on this proposal; though should it go through, the more than can be saved the better.
From the Heritage Impact Assessment:
View attachment 365346
View attachment 365347
View attachment 365348
View attachment 365349
View attachment 365350
Sick Kids flight path on the south side and 8 Elm, Chelsea Green and Concord Sky on the other corners.Ok why not a lot at yonge and elm. There's at least one proposal there for a similar height.
It would be Sick Kids there, but yes. The whole south side of Elm is covered by that path:St. Michael's hospital landing pad clearance issues
So then we need to allow R-Zones and Neighbourhoods to develop. If you force all development in a rapidly growing city into a small number of sites in one (maybe two) zoning category, things like this are inevitably going to happen.The thing is though, we really dont need to build skyscrapers on every single site downtown that doesnt have a high-rise already. Yes I understand land is scarce, but there are certain sites that need to be spared outright. This definitely qualifies as one of them.
So then we need to allow R-Zones and Neighbourhoods to develop. If you force all development in a rapidly growing city into a small number of sites in one (maybe two) zoning category, things like this are inevitably going to happen.
If you've got suggestions (addresses, areas, etc.) I'd love to hear them.While we would agree that there is land that should be more easily open to development than it is.........
It has to be said that there are literally hundreds of sites where development can occur, where there is not yet an application in process or approved.
It is important not to ignore zoning problems; it's also important to concede that there are already many opportunities.
We are a very long way from actually running out of low-hanging fruit.
I would also add; we really must stop with suggestions that the City is somehow anti-development or anti-supply; we are the fasted growing City in North America, and would be right up there for the entire western world.
There is no way to argue with a straight-face that development in Toronto is stifled.
What one can reasonably content is that certain types of development (particularly 'missing middle' is often stifled directly and/or indirectly by being made uneconomic.
That, with any luck, will begin to materially change next year subject to certain zoning reforms passing Council.
More work to do on that file, to be sure..........but progress is afoot.
If you've got suggestions (addresses, areas, etc.) I'd love to hear them.
Nooooooo, my Harvey's!!!! Would be missed!!The list would be pretty long, LOL
A lot of you it you would know, a lot of it is coming into the pipeline (Choice's properties that haven't yet seen apps, Riocan's etc etc.), some quite substantial in size.
But there are properties that aren't in the hands of developers yet (so far as I know) that read well. (sufficient area, mcr or commercial, non-employment zoning, height-residential precedent)
3400 Danforth is a good example.
Intersection of 2 major roads.
Served by 2 transit routes, more if you add Warden a block away.
Large site 0.6ha/1.5ac
No heritage implications, wouldn't be missed by anyone.
No immediate residential neighbours to object to anything.
View attachment 365383
View attachment 365384
7 storey precedent 1 block away:
View attachment 365385
I don't want to clutter up this thread with other sites as examples; we can start a should-be redeveloped thread for that, if so desired.
Suffice to say examples like the above are in abundance across the city.
I don't understand why the City doesn't spend the cash now to build an elevated Heli Pad, surely the cost of that would be a lot less significant than the recurring tax revenue lost by limiting potential productive future density over such a large path area.
So in other words it is in fact land that can be intensified, which is the point. However at this point there is no one who owns it that is interested in such.Is Brookfield vending that site (they're not)? You can only build on what you own or what you can acquire...