Toronto Theatre Park | 156.96m | 47s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

Interesting. Was there any reason given for the 7 metre reduction in height, other then "because we can, and it's expected of us"?
 
gristle said:
Yup, that's it. Tower heights must gradually fall off as they approach Queen and Spadina.
Click to expand...

Except that Theatre Park is several blocks east of Festival Tower, and only one block southwest of Shangri-La at 214m. If that policy were to be rigorously followed, then logically, the height limit at Theatre Park's location should be around 170m to 180m.

The argument usually given against a tower at this location is that it would be out of scale with the historic theatres in the area. That is a valid argument, but if it is accepted, the maximum allowed height should be much lower, maybe 50m at most. To reduce the project's height from 164m to 157m, a difference that would be almost indistinguishable to somebody standing nearby, seems pointless and petty to me.
 
Mongo said:
Except that Theatre Park is several blocks east of Festival Tower, and only one block southwest of Shangri-La at 214m. If that policy were to be rigorously followed, then logically, the height limit at Theatre Park's location should be around 170m to 180m.

The argument usually given against a tower at this location is that it would be out of scale with the historic theatres in the area. That is a valid argument, but if it is accepted, the maximum allowed height should be much lower, maybe 50m at most. To reduce the project's height from 164m to 157m, a difference that would be almost indistinguishable to somebody standing nearby, seems pointless and petty to me.
Click to expand...

It's an interesting case because the proposed height of 164 metres would violate one policy while complying with another. City staff have said that building heights within the King-Spadina Secondary plan (which the site is on the edge of) need to tapper from west to east and from south to north, so by that logic your right, something in the order of 170 metres would be appropriate. On the other hand City staff have also maintained that any building heights in Kind Spadina must be less than that of Festival Tower. So while I don't know the exact reason for the 7 metre height decrease, I'm guessing its in reference to the Festival Tower policy.
 
Big Daddy said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

To transition between the built form of a tall, dense neighbourhood and the form of the surrounding low-rise neighbourhoods. The idea is that it's not cool to suddenly be hit with a wall of tall condos, casting tall shadows and jutting out of the ground like obelisks.
 
Big Daddy said:
Why is that?
Click to expand...

I believe the original plan called for height at University and to decrease in height towards Spadina in keeping with the historic nature of the area.
However, Boutique was able to get 35 stories when it was zoned for 20 based on Shangrila at 66: The step down was felt appropriate and that has cast the whole plan in disarray with Studio now offering 31 and 41 stories I believe. With Festival also in the 40's (if I recall correctly) the City plans have basically gone up in smoke.

I agree with Sir. Novelty that people buying in 16 story buildings which was supposed to be the limit will be unhappy with 40 story buildings beside them. Given 3 story buildings, obviously anything being built today will be higher (just to justify the land costs).
 
Keep in mind that land costs are partly driven by what can be built on the land. If a solid height/density limit existed and was expected to be enforced, land values would reflect what the land could profitably be developed into.

Demanding increased height because you paid a lot of money for the land (expecting to get the increased height) is a circular argument.
 
BobBob said:
Keep in mind that land costs are partly driven by what can be built on the land. If a solid height/density limit existed and was expected to be enforced, land values would reflect what the land could profitably be developed into.

Demanding increased height because you paid a lot of money for the land (expecting to get the increased height) is a circular argument.
Click to expand...

True,
however most of the land in downtown Toronto I would believe has been held for very long times and likely well capitalized. People will not sell unless forced to land for a 3 story building. It simply likely will not be built. I don't think anyone will sell land at a value today that owuld make any 3 or 4 story structure viable. I suspect that land that could house a condo will still demand value based on what a 16 story structure would pay if not the 35 story. Those developers who where fortunate enough to buy boutique when the official plan was for 16 stories and then got permission to build the 35 story condo made a killing (no land cost attributable to floors 17 to 35). However, now that 35 story and 40 story towers are allowed, assuming the demand exists from 1 developer or another, land value will price inthat height going forward.
So while the argument is cirular, it is only circular because demand exists for either 35 -40 story buildings or because there is a willing buyer/developer willing to pay it.
 
gristle said:
Yup, that's it. Tower heights must gradually fall off as they approach Queen and Spadina.
Click to expand...

i like this plan. we should protect more historic neighbourhoods such as this but still be able to fit in with surrounding neighbourhoods...if the buildings suddenly went from 50 to 10 stories it would seem strange and out of place...they should apply this plan to all historic neighbourhoods right outside development hot spots
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top