Toronto Aura at College Park | 271.87m | 78s | Canderel | Graziani + Corazza

[Mongo]

I read that appealing to the OMB would NOT be allowed if these guidelines were broken.

This probably explains Riz Dhanji’s (uncharacteristic) down-beat comments in the article. I think any developer currently pushing for additional height (beyond these guidelines) might be out of luck…

Not to mention that the "unlimited heights" in the Financial District are still subject to NPS shadowing restrictions, plus the district is almost built out already.

While there are part of the guidelines I support (mainly concerning street-level built form), I have always been opposed to the small-minded height restrictions it contains. There was a post here some time ago that listed currently under-construction or built projects that would not be allowed under the new guidelines, and the list was ridiculously long, including Aura itself.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

My favourite line from the article

“We want to come out with world-class architecture—it’s not going to happen anymore".
lol

(that line is so disingenuous!)

They've got a big pair to make a claim like that after the twin disaster across the park on Bay Street, among others in this city. The reason they are unhappy is because it reduces the obscene amount of money that they are making, not because "...tall buildings are where it's at". Speaking of disingenuous, to make a claim that all buildings will look the same because of a maximum floor plate of 7500 sq. ft. further supports this. As far as I'm concerned they can sell off their holdings in Toronto, thrust their junk upon another unsuspecting city and make their fortunes there.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I think they raise a significant point, though the reason they are concerned about these new guidelines are not the same reasons I am. The 7500 square foot floor plate limit will make it so that developers must max out the floor plate as much as they can, to maximize profits, and feasibility. expect plenty of 7500 square foot boxy condos to come then. plus with the height limit, (extremely short) I can expect most buildings to all be within 10m of each other height-wise. the same floor plate and same height of these buildings will lead to a sort of skyline monotone similar to Vancouver's. these limits won't create bad architecture, but rather architecture that all looks the same. (no matter how good the design is)

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Sorry, I wasn't referring to the height issue but the size of the floorplate. We can debate forever height and floorplate restrictions but as SP!RE notes above, neither should have any bearing on good design.

 

[someMidTowner]

Sept 5th: Not sure if it has been mentioned here, but there is a BMO "coming soon" sign in the ground floor window

 

[steveve]

wicked 2nd pic! so nice seeing L making its mark on Yonge.

the more i see it, the 3 levels of balconies that are on the lower portion of the north side really throw off the balance of the tower... the double floor heights of these levels clash with the unified look of the balconies above. not to mention, it doesn't help that they extend on the north side (while the other ones don't) making them even more noticeable.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Sept 5th: Not sure if it has been mentioned here, but there is a BMO "coming soon" sign in the ground floor window

Right. So that is downtown Yonge's future that so many on here want - mediocre condos lining this historic street with banks, dry cleaners and corporate pizza joints in the retail spaces. Wow, how vibrant! That will be such a fine improvement over what is there now <sarcasm>.

 

[canmark]

Right. So that is downtown Yonge's future that so many on here want - mediocre condos lining this historic street with banks, dry cleaners and corporate pizza joints in the retail spaces. Wow, how vibrant! That will be such a fine improvement over what is there now <sarcasm>.

Isn't Aura replacing a parking lot? A vibrant one to be sure, but still a parking lot. ;-)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Funny, none of the tallest proposals we've seen so far (perhaps with the exception of 1 BE) can be considered "world class architecture", and certainly no project in Candrel's portfolio can be considered such at all regardless of height. World class architecture requires world class architects and developers, just saying.

And sorry one should not equate similarities in built form to similarity in appearance - and clearly the lack of serious height restriction hasn't produced that much diversity either.

AoD

 

[GenericUser]

Interesting
Strange, ..... cause there is a bunch of 70s, 75s, and one 80s in the pipeline.

Aura Condos Lonely at the Top
Canada’s tallest condo to stay the tallest?

If the City of Toronto has its way, it will stay the tallest for a long, long time. The city adopted the Downtown Tall Buildings Vision and Performance Standards Design Guidelines in July of this year.

The recommendations in the guidelines cap the height of Toronto buildings at 60 stories even on the busiest streets like Yonge Street—something Riz Dhanji, VP of sales and marketing for Canderel Residential, thinks will make the city an architectural backwater.

“If you go to any major city in the world today, tall buildings are where it’s at. High density is where people are moving,” says Dhanji.

The reason we have tall buildings is that we’re right above the subway,” says Dhanji.

Building ultra tall may not only be a thing of the past, but we may stop building anything unusual too. The tall building guidelines also limit the base plate of new buildings to 7,500 square feet.

The idea behind much of the guidelines is to keep city streets sunny. Thinner buildings cast thinner shadows. You can only go so high without making the base larger.

Not only do the recommendations limit the height and size of buildings, but they also put forward a set of suggested typologies for different areas of the city.

“In the next five years you’re going to look at buildings and all of them will look the same,” says Dhanji
More........http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/business/aura-condos-lonely-at-the-top-287903.html

This is absolutely ridiculous. Why is this city allowed to make such drastic decisions without any serious public input? (no, small meetings at a local library/church don't count since 99.9% of people had no idea they even took place). I'm sure that a lot of people would not agree with these mindless restrictions. We need to embrace development in our city, not prevent it! Is there any chance that the large developers in this city will attempt to appeal this decision at a provincial/federal court?

Does city council really have nothing better to do all day than to debate whether a 1 cm^2 shadow is cast on a public area or whether bigger buildings are good for the city? How about we fire some of these clowns, since they are clearly not doing their job of improving this city.

Instead of pushing for stricter regulations on fire codes, building efficiency, podium retail development, and maybe even aesthetics (facade materials, etc.) they just want to hinder development? Why?? I would much rather live in a city with towering skyscrapers that are forced to adhere to higher standards of build quality and architecture than one ruled by stubby mediocre piles of concrete a la vancouver.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Starting to impact nicely.

 

[Traynor]

Isn't Aura replacing a parking lot? A vibrant one to be sure, but still a parking lot. ;-)

Speaking of that... I remember the buildings that used to be there until the late 70's early 80's. If I recall correctly, they were torn down by a developer hoping to build a second phase to the College Park Apartments which were added to the Eatons at College Park renovation. Judging by the looks of them, they don't seem in any more disrepair than any other Yonge Street building of the time. It does seem strange it was a parking lot for so long.

(Note: Hayter was still a street on the West side of Yonge!)

(Yonge looking South from Carlton 1976)

 

[confusion]

We need to embrace development in our city, not prevent it!

I disagree. We need careful planning and that means determining what the livibility at street level will be.

If we just embrace all development without any thought, we'll have a disaster neighbourhood in the making. There is already very little parkland in this area. What about wind tunnels and sunlight which affect the people who will be living here 20 years from now. Let's just let developers add 27 more towers down here with no thought and see what happens.

Kristyn Wong-Tam's Tall Buildings guideline is a start, but I think much more needs to be done to ring in developers since they are financially driven.

 

[BrianSolo]

Sure there needs to be planning and consideration for wind tunnels, light & shadows etc. But to cap at 60 stories does not make any sense. Why 60? Why not 55? 65? Is 60 a magic number or something?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

BrianSolo:

We deal with arbitary limits all the time - just like developers have their own math for project feasibility, and bankers have the same for providing funding. Without it, you can easily argue 60 is 80.

AoD