Toronto PRIME Condos | 148.43m | 46s | CentreCourt | Arcadis

Developer is CentreCourt, architect is P + S/IBI:
upload_2017-2-22_14-29-19.png


upload_2017-2-22_14-31-10.png


This reminds me of Hearst Tower in NYC:

upload_2017-2-22_14-32-7.png

source
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-2-22_14-29-19.png
    upload_2017-2-22_14-29-19.png
    642.9 KB · Views: 880
  • upload_2017-2-22_14-31-10.png
    upload_2017-2-22_14-31-10.png
    658.6 KB · Views: 876
  • upload_2017-2-22_14-32-7.png
    upload_2017-2-22_14-32-7.png
    432.4 KB · Views: 826
From the Planning Rationale:

Our analysis of the shadow drawings is as follows:
  • The proposed tall building is a point tower on a podium and the profile of the tower results in shadows cast on any one location for approximately one hour in duration, a length of time that adequately limits shadows, particularly in a Downtown context;

  • The analysis of the sunlight implications on the open space area of Allan Gardens Park and the greenhouse buildings indicate that there are no prolonged adverse shadow impacts from the proposed building. Shadow impacts are limited and transitional, and are not considered of a magnitude that would limit the ability of the site to accommodate a tall building.

  • With respect to March 21 and September 21 shadows, the proposed 50-storey building results in a slender and quick moving incremental shadow of approximately three hours through Allan Gardens. No one spot is subject to the incremental shadow for more than one hour. On September 21 the shadow is completely off Allan Gardens Park by 4:18PM. At 4:18PM on March 21, the building creates a small incremental shadow at the southeast corner of the Park at Sherbourne Street and Gerrard Street East.

  • The proposed building does not create any unacceptable shadow impacts on Allan Gardens Park or any of the conservatory buildings on June 21.

  • The properties to the south are not shadowed by the subject proposal. The Neighbourhoods to the east are subject to minimal incremental shadowing arising from this project in the late afternoons of the Spring and Fall Equinoxes (March/September) and late afternoons of the Summer Solstice (June).

  • Other existing, approved, and proposed buildings along Jarvis and Dundas Streets, as mentioned in the surrounding area context, have similar shadow implications for the Neighbourhoods to the east, along George and Pembroke Streets, at other times of the day, which is typical in the Downtown.

  • It is our opinion that the short duration of sun shadowing due primarily to the slender nature of the tall building satisfies Sections 4.5.2(e), by adequately limiting sunlight on adjacent streets, parks and open spaces and Neighbourhoods areas.
Click to expand...
 
I like the design, it's clean and interesting BUT ... it's too tall for the area. Aura has changed my sensibilities regarding height. We need more mid rise on our main streets. I'd be ok with this proposal if it were 30 stories or if it was located deeper in the city core but 50 in this location is too out of place. I hate Aura in part because it's always visible (and it's woefully ugly).
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
This has been added to The 120m List. Height given at "main roof" is 156.9m, another height on a top-down view is 164.9m so I'm going to hope the latter is the architectural top until new drawings come out.
Click to expand...
The Planning Rationale confirms that the top of the mechanical penthouse is at 164.9 metres!

42
 
Why are you quoting me from page one when the developer wasn't revealed until page three? Did CentreCourt do you wrong?
 
The Planning department has a number of serious concerns with this proposal, being height, transition to low buildings beside it, and its separation from the lot lines (which aren't much).

The consultation is on now at the Ramada (just a block to the north), and the locals are fighting mad over this one. While they were generally pleased at the consultation for 280 Jarvis which just ended, this meeting has taken on a very different flavour now. Shadows are number one here, with those living adjacent convinced they'll be in shadow "all the time".

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top