Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

khaldoon said:
Maybe so but for Pinnacle, adding 116 units without much extra cost (besides constructing those extra floors and supporting mechanical) could mean extra several million dollars of profit.
Click to expand...
Dont forget while screwing residents who will be serviced with the same number of elevators if the height increase is approved.
 
Amare said:
Dont forget while screwing residents who will be serviced with the same number of elevators if the height increase is approved.
Click to expand...
Exactly. That is why I said “without much extra cost”. As far as I can tell they will not be adding elevators or enhancing any amenities as a result/condition of the height increase.
 
maestro said:
I also like to considerate the impact of height on their environments and the public realm. There's so many awesome skylines that have inhospitable pedestrian realms. This will undeniably created more shadows on public property. I don't think height should ever be prioritized over it and my impression is that what happening every time a proposal get a haircut. Planning does make questionable decisions with height. Not enough of us read their rationale. I don't consider Jesse Ketchum shadowing a strong argument considering the compromises made from previous developments. I will even say, with the history of development I know around Jesse Ketchum that this is disingenuous of planning to use as the basis of their argument. A much stronger argument would be the increase to the density however, that would need a deeper explanation to all interested parties. The design is preferable with the height increase although there's no reason a balanced look couldn't have been achieved with the current approved envelope.

I'm indifferent to the height. The approved height has already surpassed a major benchmark. The addition is just statistical. My indifference may also be that a negative decision from council is pretty meaningless. Mizrahi is the type to take this all the way to the province if necessary whether he needs these additional floors to offset inflation or not.
Click to expand...
Again, did anyone die from shadowing on a park?

New York and Paris have much more attractive pocket parks and courtyards than Jesse Ketchum, many of which are completely shaded.

The public realm of Jesse Ketchum is very provincial to say the least.
 
zang said:
In which case, it was never really about the height to begin with (but is a good enough excuse to give him slap him on the wrist), and nothing is likely to get him the increase.
Click to expand...
It's petty and not in the best interest of the city, which should be looking to maximize revenue from property taxes.
 
xy3 said:
It's petty and not in the best interest of the city, which should be looking to maximize revenue from property taxes.
Click to expand...
It was also petty to demolish Stollery’s (starting with its lauded ornamentation) as soon as heritage review was so much as brought up, and without even having submitted a plan. Neither side is without some kind of fault here.

Adding a few extra condos for multimillionaires certainly isn’t in the best interests of a city in dire need of affordable housing either. Most seem to want the extra height simply because they want a phallic structure measuring contest driven by a feeling of inadequacy in comparison to NYC.

And if the goal for the city were property tax revenue, they could rake in magnitudes more just by getting rid of Yellowbelt restrictions and allowing for missing middle housing.

A small handful of penthouses aren’t going to pay for squat.
 
xy3 said:
You're forgetting that the height increase would considerably improve this building aesthetically .
Click to expand...
“Considerably”

Please explain the use of that word specifically.

As if it’s some kind of hideous beast because it’s 30m shorter. Do you think someone at street level is going to notice much of a difference?
 
The 308 meter design looks truncated, because the top section is only 1/3 the length of the 4 sections below it.

In the 338 meter design it dosent look truncated but the top section is 2/3 the length of the section below it, so it dosent suffer from being overly repetitive either (If the top section were the same length as the sections below it , it would also look 'off' like the 308m design)

Regardless, Jesse Ketchum is extremely utilitarian compared to the likes of Bryant Park, Paley Park , Parc LaFontaine etc .. The metal awning structure is hideous.
 
zang said:
Adding a few extra condos for multimillionaires certainly isn’t in the best interests of a city in dire need of affordable housing either. Most seem to want the extra height simply because they want a phallic structure measuring contest driven by a feeling of inadequacy in comparison to NYC.
Click to expand...
I don't think adding a few extra condos for multimillionaires is going to have an effect on the city's affordable housing either way so it's a moot point.

What's wrong with wanting to compete with NYC when it comes Skyscrapers? Especially in a forum that's filled with Skyscraper enthusiast?
 
xy3 said:
The 308 meter design looks truncated, because the top section is only 1/3 the length of the 4 sections below it.

In the 338 meter design it dosent look truncated but the top section is 2/3 the length of the section below it, so it dosent suffer from being overly repetitive either (If the top section were the same length as the sections below it , it would also look 'off' like the 308m design)
Click to expand...
While yes the taller design looks better, the average person is never going to think about any of this. They're just going to think "damn that building is really tall" and move on. City policy is not about catering to building nerds on this forum, no matter how much many people here wish it was. These are condos for the ultra-ultra-wealthy, they do nothing for the housing crisis, and the city gets to say it cares about park space by protecting the most sacred park of all (or whatever, I do think the obsession with this park is a bit silly, but I also understand it's more about precedent than this specific park). They really don't have much to lose here from a PR perspective other than upsetting the developer and a few people who are obsessed with tall buildings.
 
City policy could care less about aesthetics either . Their recommendation for "a more contemporary expression" lead to the disaster that is the crown of 88 Scott ( the crown in the original design was more sensible)
 
Part 2 of 2 taken on January 16, 2023:

IMG_6979.jpeg
IMG_6980.jpeg
IMG_6981.jpeg
IMG_6982.jpeg
IMG_6983.jpeg
IMG_6984.jpeg
IMG_6985.jpeg
IMG_6986.jpeg
IMG_6987.jpeg
 
TossYourJacket said:
While yes the taller design looks better, the average person is never going to think about any of this. They're just going to think "damn that building is really tall" and move on. City policy is not about catering to building nerds on this forum, no matter how much many people here wish it was. These are condos for the ultra-ultra-wealthy, they do nothing for the housing crisis, and the city gets to say it cares about park space by protecting the most sacred park of all (or whatever, I do think the obsession with this park is a bit silly, but I also understand its more about precedent than this specific park). They really don't have much to lose here from a PR perspective other than upsetting the developer and a few people who are obsessed with tall buildings.
Click to expand...

The thing is, demand for housing for the ultra-ultra wealthy doesn’t just go away. If you simply don’t build for that demographic, then the ultra-ultra wealthy bid on housing for the ultra wealthy, and the ultra wealthy bid on housing for the wealthy, wealthy for the upper-middle class, etc. In order to address a housing crisis, you have to build across the spectrum of housing quality otherwise housing quality takes a hit across income levels.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top