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

Very true, although height alone can have significant impacts on shadowing. Whether or not shadowing should be a priority is fodder for another (endless) discussion.
 
One thing I'm confused by in the Toronto Star article is that it stated The One, as it's currently proposed, is a huge step up in terms of density. My understanding of that is that the proposal itself is a ramp up in densification levels compared to other condos/proposals, but don't many Toronto condos have around 10 units per floor?

For example, One Bloor East has (according to UT) 789 units over 76 floors. Mirvish and Gehry are planned to have 1,974 units over 174 floors. What makes The One considered to be higher density than these with 416 units over 80 floors?
 
because density is calculated on GFA (Gross Floor Area), not units. That number is then divided by the site area to determine the "density". This development has over 80,000 square metres of GFA, on a site of 2,800 square metres. this results in a total density of 28.3. (GFA / Site area)
 
ShonTron said:
The pro-build tall, taller, TALLER!!!! Urban Toronto strikes again.

I don't want Denzil Minnan-Wong coming in, picking fights with Wong-Tam, and interfering in our ward. Let Denzil stick to development applications in Ward 34, they elected him.
Click to expand...

I don't like it either, however if it helps get this project moving it's certainly worth it. Because if Wong-tam had her way it never would've happened. It's alarming to see how obstructionist a councilor can be. Thank goodness for an intervention.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That's a simplification - neither the default pro-tall nor the NIMBY crowd cared about anything but height. That's the backwater aspect - and it's an equal opportunity label.

AoD
Click to expand...

The design is outstanding. One of the very best in Toronto's history.
So I'd say the NIMBY's are obsessed with height since they are willing to obstruct a tall tower at Yonge & Bloor despite its design.
The idea of having the Stollery's façade forming the base of this laughable. Without the developer's prompt action last year, it might have turned out that way. Close call indeed.
 
“I think it’s too dense. I think it’s too tall,” said Councillor Joe Cressy, of neighbouring Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina. “And I think it’s too much.”

Whereas I disagree with your 3 claims, or one claim repeated 3 times.
 
buildup said:
The design is outstanding. One of the very best in Toronto's history.
So I'd say the NIMBY's are obsessed with height since they are willing to obstruct a tall tower at Yonge & Bloor despite it's design.
Click to expand...

So is half the forum on here - if the building was designed by G+C they'd be just as happy. Which is my point.

AoD
 
I very much doubt it. I think UT is a bit of a fishbowl... what we happen to think of a particular project might have little bearing on what the rest of Toronto's citizens think of it.

Mind you, it's a lovely fishbowl.
 
buildup said:
The design is outstanding. One of the very best in Toronto's history.
So I'd say the NIMBY's are obsessed with height since they are willing to obstruct a tall tower at Yonge & Bloor despite it's design.
The idea of having the Stollery's façade forming the base of this laughable. Without the developer's prompt action last year, it might have turned out that way. Close call indeed.
Click to expand...

Hyperbole much?

Just because it may be an outstanding design shouldn't allow a developer to ignore procedure and start jackhammering a facade without the necessary protection. It's no different than a developer hiring an arson. (my own hyperbolic contribution) The heritage value of Stollery's is irrelevant.

I don't agree that this project shouldn't go ahead but, I do have reservation and understand some of the NIMBY concerns. There's an awful lot of commercial space here and all the servicing is to be providing down a narrow laneway abutting the neighbouring condo. Traffic studies mostly consider flow. For example, they don't consider all the nuances of an idling truck waiting for to turn onto the street. It's downtown, so this is to be expected but, exactly how muchis the big question.
 
I'm certainly anti-height and anti-density at times; however, this is one location and context where I have no problem with bonkers height and density.

I fundamentally believe that cities are at there best when they have a diversity of built forms and land-uses. This is where I clash with the new school mixed-use community planning brigade. By attempting to create one uniform approach to city building they want to pave over the city with there planning principles; however, I think the result is not that different philosophically from the Radiant City idealists they usurped but instead of highways we get bike lanes. Truth is highways and bike-lanes are both great, just not everywhere and in every situation.

I don't want bonkers density and building heights all over the city. On the other hand I feel that having some areas of the city with bonkers density and building height enriches the city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top