717 Church Street | 95m | 27s | Capital Developments | Diamond Schmitt

Kenojuak

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
401
Reaction score
1,313
I am in the area daily and I am ok with the extra traffic. Slowing it down on church would be AMAZING.
It looks interesting but am I the only one concerned about access points and traffic? I'm sure this will be great for all the 2 lane roads in the area!

"Extra traffic" and "access points and traffic"? Did you read the article or review the application? Please, people. Do at least a tiny bit of research before spouting opinions.
 

Rascacielo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2017
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
19,257
Location
Toronto
Site (buildings to be razed)

EDDEF600-71C0-4FAB-9C6C-22FDCEE5B84B.jpeg
 

SonyPayStation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
164
Reaction score
210
Here's the 3D Model in context. Barely making a mark on the Bloor-Yorkville cluster:

50696683947_dbf0fe0f09_k.jpg

50695852463_4580a3c53b_k.jpg

It's actually pretty tiny when you look at in this context. I still think the City is going to ask them to chop it down a few storeys; which is unfortunate because it will make it look stumpy instead of tall and lean, which is one of the advantages of the faux-flatiron shape.
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
19,238
Reaction score
46,466
Location
Davenport

Toronto is getting a new flatiron building proposed to be developed at the edge of Yorkville near the corner of Park Road and Church Street northeast of Yonge and Bloor. Capital Developments, the team behind the proposal, filed an application with the city on Nov. 27.

The development, with 200,000 square feet of gross floor space, would include 300 residential units and a small amount of retail space. The site does not include any parking spaces.

“The building seeks to maximize green transportation and encourage wellness,” said Carlo Timpano, senior vice-president of development at Capital Developments.

“Given the site’s exceptional walkability, bike-ability and proximity to the most prominent subway station in the city, the proposal includes the provision for zero vehicular parking and instead provides three at-grade car share spaces located within the building footprint.”

----------
The development’s planning rationale submitted alongside the application notes that it capitalizes on the unique shape of the almost triangular lot and the layout and massing of the building allow for a transition in height from the super tall buildings to the west and south to the mid-rise and low-rise buildings to the east.

“All four facades of the building respond in different ways to the surrounding streets and adjacent buildings,” notes the planning rationale.

“The development and provision of a wide range of units will lead to greater density in an area that is walkable and well-served by the existing office and retail spaces as well as public amenities.”

The application is currently circulating to various city divisions for feedback, after which a preliminary report will come before Toronto and East York Community Council prior to eventually making its way to city council for a decision.
 

SonyPayStation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
164
Reaction score
210
This one has a preliminary report headed to the Feb 24th, 2021 TEYCC meeting.


The City is not keen on the height:

View attachment 299684

Shadowing concerns are not unexpected:

View attachment 299685

It is 30 storeys in a neighborhood with like 80 storey buildings. This is why developers just submit with like 50 storeys and go straight to LPAT - because why bother trying? I swear planning is their own worst enemy.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,022
Reaction score
30,646
Location
by the Humber
It is 30 storeys in a neighborhood with like 80 storey buildings. This is why developers just submit with like 50 storeys and go straight to LPAT - because why bother trying? I swear planning is their own worst enemy.
Toronto developers know that if they are going to add shadow to parkland, they are going to get pushback from the City. They also know that being a couple blocks away from an 80 storey building may make all the difference, shadow-wise, so that's why they are only proposing 30 here.

This will not be going to the LPAT necessarily, BTW, the developers can still work this out with Planning, and we'll find out soon enough how much of a trim the project will require to satisfy the City.

42
 

SonyPayStation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
164
Reaction score
210
Toronto developers know that if they are going to add shadow to parkland, they are going to get pushback from the City. They also know that being a couple blocks away from an 80 storey building may make all the difference, shadow-wise, so that's why they are only proposing 30 here.

This will not be going to the LPAT necessarily, BTW, the developers can still work this out with Planning, and we'll find out soon enough how much of a trim the project will require to satisfy the City.

42
I hear you - but their argument is purely subjective "adequately limit" shadows on on-protected parks, and "fit with context" of "neighborhoods" which should not be prioritized in this specific context.

I cannot help but feel that this is just a knee-jerk reaction - maybe I'm just overreacting.
 
Last edited:

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,801
Reaction score
5,735
Location
Quarks Bar
Here is the area in question, a transition zone between tall buildings on one side and low-rise on the other...

Toronto Model 02-16-21 717 Church.png


Zoomed-out:

Toronto Model 02-16-21 717 Church2.png
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,022
Reaction score
30,646
Location
by the Humber
I hear you - but their argument is purely subjective "adequately limit" shadows on on-protected parks, and "fit with context" of "neighborhoods" which should not be prioritized in this specific context.

I cannot help but feel that this is just a knee-jerk reaction - maybe I'm just overreacting.
The City recognizes that there are already shadows on parks, and they simply don't want more of them, although they do accept tiny amounts more shadow. That's the "adequately limit" part, as opposed to it being completely non-negotiable. For example, if a new building is only going to marginally widen of lengthen a bit of shadow that already sweeps across a park, they'll allow, but they will not allow new blocks of shadow on parkland. It's impossible to draw an exact line I suppose between the two, so how marginal the extra shadow is to be, is what get negotiated. I haven't had time to check out the shadow studies for this one, but I'm interested in seeing now what it is that the City is opposing.

42
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,015
Reaction score
5,515
The City recognizes that there are already shadows on parks, and they simply don't want more of them, although they do accept tiny amounts more shadow. That's the "adequately limit" part, as opposed to it being completely non-negotiable. For example, if a new building is only going to marginally widen of lengthen a bit of shadow that already sweeps across a park, they'll allow, but they will not allow new blocks of shadow on parkland. It's impossible to draw an exact line I suppose between the two, so how marginal the extra shadow is to be, is what get negotiated. I haven't had time to check out the shadow studies for this one, but I'm interested in seeing now what it is that the City is opposing.

42
On this subject of a sorta related topic: In my overly fertile meandering imagination, I've created a world where if proposed buildings where to cast shadows over parks they are being erected near by, the developers would compensate by installing mechanical based lenses and mirrors on said buildings to redirect sunlight to those parks that is blocked in all seasons. Presuming such an endeavor is feasible, reasonably inexpensive and doesn't sear out the eyes of the park's patrons, would the City agree to this compromise in the hypothetical like this?

Note: Yes, I've always wondered about that...
 

Top