Toronto 64 Prince Arthur | 46.1m | 13s | Forgestone | RAW Design

1Ch75O9.jpg

Nh80jF3.jpg
 
You simply cannot put a tall building here. There is a busy park and open greenspace immediately to the north. It would shadow it completely.

This should be thrown out ab initio.
 
There's a 19-storey building next door to this which has been there since 1968, and which would have greater shadow impact on Taddle Creek Park. Good luck lawyering up to fight a similarly tall one here.

42
 
LMVDR said:
You simply cannot put a tall building here. There is a busy park and open greenspace immediately to the north. It would shadow it completely.

This should be thrown out ab initio.
Click to expand...

That's what the shadowing study is for, and there are tall buildings on both sides of this site, one of which already almost completely shadows the park, at least at whatever time of day and year this image was taken:

shadow.PNG
 

Attachments

  • shadow.PNG
    shadow.PNG
    786.3 KB · Views: 2,619
Of course there's already shadowing. The issue is incremental shadow and when that occurs.

I'm suggesting that any proposal here should not be permitted at all if it creates any incremental shadowing. There is precious little greenspace in this area to begin with. Creating more shadows should not be tolerated.
 
LMVDR said:
Of course there's already shadowing. The issue is incremental shadow and when that occurs.

I'm suggesting that any proposal here should not be permitted at all if it creates any incremental shadowing. There is precious little greenspace in this area to begin with. Creating more shadows should not be tolerated.
Click to expand...

Surely, as with anything, it will (and should) come down to a matter of degree; "incremental" in this case would mean very different things to different people. But I think setting the limit at any incrementalism is far too declarative.
 
ADRM said:
Surely, as with anything, it will (and should) come down to a matter of degree; "incremental" in this case would mean very different things to different people. But I think setting the limit at any incrementalism is far too declarative.
Click to expand...

I beg to differ. If this developer cannot design a building that does not add additional shadowing of any kind on this scarce community resource, ie Taddle Creek park, the proposal should be refused.

It's really not asking for much now is it?
 
LMVDR said:
I beg to differ. If this developer cannot design a building that does not add additional shadowing of any kind on this scarce community resource, ie Taddle Creek park, the proposal should be refused.

It's really not asking for much now is it?
Click to expand...

I think rejecting a proposal out of hand for adding 6 inches of shadow for 6 minutes of the 6th day of the 6th month of the year is asking for too much, yes.
 
LMVDR said:
I beg to differ. If this developer cannot design a building that does not add additional shadowing of any kind on this scarce community resource, ie Taddle Creek park, the proposal should be refused.

It's really not asking for much now is it?
Click to expand...

Your logic and way of thinking is ridiculous, nimbyism at its best, I'll leave it at that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top