NeilV
Active Member
It appears that the height reduction was largely due to shadowing on the park.
Toronto 8 Elm | 218.2m | 69s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Big Daddy
Senior Member
Wow, this one has taken quite a haircut - originally 259 m.
Last edited:
Automation Gallery
Superstar
what park?...the visionary park that has yet to be built?
Koops65
Senior Member
If this shadows a park so will Chelsea Green... they're right beside each other.
ushahid
Senior Member
they r definitely going to cut down chelsea green. 
Automation Gallery
Superstar
they r definitely going to cut down chelsea green.
Somewhere on this report it says its approved?... https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-132653.pdf
Site and Surrounding Area The site is a rectangular lot with 50.4 metres of frontage on Elm Street and a lot depth of 37.7 metres. The lot area is 1799.8 m2.
The surrounding uses are as follows
:
North: The Chelsea Hotel has existing 26 and 27-storey towers. This site has been approved for three towers being 31, 48, and 84-stories along with a public park, POPS and re-connection of Walton Street.
South: On the south side of Elm Street, 2 and 3-storey commercial buildings with possibly some residential uses on the upper floors
.
West: 3 to 4-storey commercial buildings entailing The Arts and Letter Club and Elmwood Spa, both of which are designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act
. East: On the east side of Yonge Street, 1 to 4-storey commercial buildings. The property at 363-387 Yonge Street, which includes most of the Yonge Street frontage on the east side of Yonge Street, has been approved for an 85-storey mixed use tower
NeilV
Active Member
At the meeting for 8 Elm they said that the Chelsea development has indeed been approved. No more height cuts here!
Yes, that park. I'm pretty sure Chelsea will shadow it, but they've designed 8 Elm to avoid any additional shadows.
WislaHD
Superstar
Is tall.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Ugh tall?... a tall building surrounded by taller buildings is more suitable than a tall bldg. among short buildings
Lenser
Senior Member
Really? Why? Explain, please.
3Dementia
Senior Member
Despite having only elevations (one with a bit of colour), I thinkin' this might be rather good indeed despite haircut. Materials will decide of course but there's some strong hints that the exterior form (sculpting etc.) could yield a very pleasing tower.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Agree - the design certainly looks more coherent than the previous two versions with all that mish-mash.
AoD
NeilV
Active Member
A few key metrics from the meeting:
It's interesting that the FSI was not significantly reduced when going from 84 to 67 stories (31.4 vs 30.2), which further confirms that shadowing was the main factor. Once again the shadows have turned a tall and slender building into a short and fat one.
It's interesting that the FSI was not significantly reduced when going from 84 to 67 stories (31.4 vs 30.2), which further confirms that shadowing was the main factor. Once again the shadows have turned a tall and slender building into a short and fat one.
raptor
Senior Member
For the record, 215m is far from short
ushahid
Senior Member
but it is not 260m/ 80 storeys or very short when compared to the first two versions.