Toronto Toronto Coach Terminal Redevelopment | ?m | 41s | Kilmer + Tricon | Studio Gang + a—A

[HousingNowTO]

Yes, this impacts the site, and many more sites throughout downtown which need to reduce height now.

It’s my understanding that there was an incident with a helicopter at one of the hospitals that triggered the need for these changes, so it’s all for good reason.

OK, any idea on what the new HEIGHT-LIMIT on that corner is now in M or Storeys..? Thx!

 

[Northern Light]

It looks like the new, expanded MZO flight-paths now appear to place a serious height restriction on the BAY street parcel, directly over the old Coach Terminal...???

Can someone with a more expert eye please confirm if my "BLUE cone is now a problem" assumption is correct..??? Thx!

SOURCE - https://cassels.com/insights/the-sk...l-height-of-development-in-torontos-downtown/

View attachment 538423

@TwinHuey is best placed to identify what elevation limit would apply in this section.

In terms of the site overall, obviously @Tuscani01 has identified that this is an impact, but my cautious read is that there is enough footprint left, even while not touching the Bay-side heritage to do something workable here. It just wouldn't be the same as it was previously conceived of, which likely means a delay.......

It would also be a highly irregular shape. Which UT'ers would love.....but has impacts on build costs.

 

[Tuscani01]

OK, any idea on what the new HEIGHT-LIMIT on that corner is now in M or Storeys..? Thx!

Looks like it may be around 50 metres. As @Northern Light pointed out, it likely just means moving around the massing. It’s a big enough site to play around with.

 

[Northern Light]

Looks like it may be around 50 metres. As @Northern Light pointed out, it likely just means moving around the massing. It’s a big enough site to play around with.

Does this impact any building already approved and under construction that has not yet reached an offending height?

***

So far, my read is that the most conspicuous impact is on the 483 Bay proposal, which would be toast in its current form. (St. Mike's Western Approach)

 

[Tuscani01]

Does this impact any building already approved and under construction that has not yet reached an offending height?

No.

 

[Northern Light]

No.

For clarity, approved, but not yet under construction? 483 Bay definitely offends the new zoning order by a fair margin.

 

[Tuscani01]

Approved and no building permits = impacted. Approved and under construction ≠ impacted.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

So 522 University, but not The United BLDG as an example?

 

[ProjectEnd]

So 522 University, but not The United BLDG as an example?

Neither of those particular projects are affected.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Neither of those particular projects are affected.

Granted. But if they where in the hypothetical?

 

[ProjectEnd]

If 522 were under the path at its current height / articulation, yes, it would be affected. As United Bldg has a permit and is under construction, it would not.

Off the top of my head, ones to look out for:

• KingSett - Atrium on Bay
• GWL - 200 University
• Northam - 250 University
• Northam - 483 Bay
• CentreCourt - 260 Adelaide (it's riiiight on the cusp though so maybe not)
• KingSett - 214-230 Sherbourne (which, interestingly, they've already offered to sell back to the City...)
• Dash - 225 Queen East
• Lamb - 75 Ontario

Those are the ones that come immediately to mind.

 

[TwinHuey]

@TwinHuey is best placed to identify what elevation limit would apply in this section.

In terms of the site overall, obviously @Tuscani01 has identified that this is an impact, but my cautious read is that there is enough footprint left, even while not touching the Bay-side heritage to do something workable here. It just wouldn't be the same as it was previously conceived of, which likely means a delay.......

It would also be a highly irregular shape. Which UT'ers would love.....but has impacts on build costs.

Sorry @Northern Light, I wish I could provide some insight but my experience / knowledge is dated. All I recall is that Transport Canada required H1 heliports to have approach / departure corridors at an 8° slope extending out 625m from the helideck. No idea about the corridor width requirements.

I know this may sound a bit far fetched, but if HSC moves the heliport to the roof top of the proposed new tower, it would add approximately 17 storeys of allowable height under the approach / departure corridors.

I'd be curious to see what the approach / departure corridors look like with the helideck on the western edge of the new tower.

I would hope that slightly changing the angle of the corridors to the new tower would not result in restrictive zoning for additional properties nor would it be an issue from a flight operations perspective. Both would need to be confirmed.

Hospital For Sick Children: Peter Gilgan Family Patient Care Tower | 169m | 29s | Sick Kids | Stantec

As long as they're not touching the Zeidler atrium, I'm on board!

urbantoronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

For @ProjectEnd a closer look at the western and eastern approaches for St. Mikes.

Now the Eastern Approach:

 

[khris]

Someone should really think about shrinking that cone to the east and also get rid of the north approach.

 

[Northern Light]

Someone should really think about shrinking that cone to the east and also get rid of the north approach.

Why would they do this, when:

a) They just enlarged it, literally, and did so, it would seem, because of a clear safety issue.

b) Why would we limit safe transport of medically emergent patients to world leading hospitals, so a dozen building sites can be taller? Does this really seem like a good trade? Not to me.