Toronto Q Tower | 197.4m | 59s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

smably said:
The bike path needs a substantial physical barrier at the west end where it's right up against Harbour. A fall to the right would put a cyclist under the tires of a truck before they even knew what was happening. The recent designs for the Lake Shore East public realm are an example of how to do this right.
Click to expand...

Is there space to re-align everything so both bike paths have a dedicated lane (with a physical barrier between it and the road), have 3 lanes of traffic (as depicted), and a wide sidewalk? The sidewalk next to that WaterPark condo on the east side looks absurdly narrow. The whole thing needs to be re-done. Maybe it will mean just 2 lanes of road?
 
isaidso said:
Is there space to re-align everything so both bike paths have a dedicated lane (with a physical barrier between it and the road), have 3 lanes of traffic (as depicted), and a wide sidewalk? The sidewalk next to that WaterPark condo on the east side looks absurdly narrow. The whole thing needs to be re-done. Maybe it will mean just 2 lanes of road?
Click to expand...

Not without shifting the west building.
 
DSC said:
Report to TEYCC http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.TE23.43
Click to expand...

From said report, here's what the City is looking at:

1613058887621.png


1613058942661.png



Of the above...............what surprises me is that the flight path issue is not considered resolved.

That's one you can't make a mess of, unless the airport meets its demise.

The issue w/tower separation was a known problem.............and I expect some changes may be required here.
 
Northern Light said:
From said report, here's what the City is looking at:

View attachment 299571

View attachment 299572


Of the above...............what surprises me is that the flight path issue is not considered resolved.

That's one you can't make a mess of, unless the airport meets its demise.

The issue w/tower separation was a known problem.............and I expect some changes may be required here.
Click to expand...
Nothing is resolved at the Preliminary Report stage. These reports aren't much more than a list of items Planning has identified to work on, many of them totally generic and applied to every building.

42
 
1612014230263-png.297066


I'm curious if anyone can shed any additional light on the min 25m tower separation distance rule. As a resident of the west tower (218 QQW), it looks like applying that rule would wipe out half of their proposed west tower for being too close. Surely they knew this right? Are exceptions typically given, is there a historical precedent?

I've got a hard time seeing any solution that isn't a single central tower if that rule is immovable.
 
The Preliminary Report seems to indicate that while this isn't perfect, staff are generally happy with the concept. I wouldn't bank on any major changes (eg, moving to a single tower) now. Things will adjust and shift, maybe a bit of extra room will be afforded to the 18.2m separation, but I think it's safe to say many of the 'big moves' are locked in.
 
Cart said:
1612014230263-png.297066


I'm curious if anyone can shed any additional light on the min 25m tower separation distance rule. As a resident of the west tower (218 QQW), it looks like applying that rule would wipe out half of their proposed west tower for being too close. Surely they knew this right? Are exceptions typically given, is there a historical precedent?

I've got a hard time seeing any solution that isn't a single central tower if that rule is immovable.
Click to expand...
There is no rule for 25m separation distance between towers, except when there are multiple new towers within a single site. Then they must be 25m apart.

The rule is that a new tower to be 12.5m from your property line. This comes from the Tall Building Guidelines. Both of these rules are being met as you can see on the next slide of that deck.

1614977722916.png


If this seems too tight, it is because Waterclub was built too close to the property line. Redevelopment of the garage was always a possibility and everyone involved would have know that at the time.

Also all of the units at 218 QQW face south except for one small unit facing north that will be 18.2m from the new building as seen in the image you posted.

Maybe disappointing but the towers have been placed appropriately within the site and meet the rules.
 
ciceror said:
They must be a bit mad in the head to think this slumish design belongs in the south core of our city
Click to expand...
Looks a hell of a lot better than a lot of the crap that's already been built in the South Core. But I guess that's a matter of opinion or degrees of madness...
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Looks a hell of a lot better than a lot of the crap that's already been built in the South Core. But I guess that's a matter of opinion or degrees of madness...
Click to expand...


Sorry for bumping this old thread, but personally these buildings can't go up fast enough for my liking, to block out the 3 ugly Water club buildings. I cringe every time I look at those buildings.

I'm almost as excited about this as I am about the supertalls...lol.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top