brianyyz
Active Member
I am in the area daily and I am ok with the extra traffic. Slowing it down on church would be AMAZING.
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!
Here's the 3D Model in context. Barely making a mark on the Bloor-Yorkville cluster:
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.
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
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.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.
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.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
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.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.
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?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