Big Daddy said:
No, it doesn't, but significantly lower profits practically guarantee poor design, maintenance and care.
Click to expand...

What does significantly lower profits mean! In the red? Even? Did someone overpay for land? Were there unforeseen complications in the building process? Did bad weather cause a delay? Did a permit issue cause a delay? None of these things has anything to do with design. There are many factors going on in a development, right?

Anyway, this conversation is relentlessly boring, unlike this development despite its over-reliance on glass.
 
Wow that is a gorgeous (concept) park. I really hope it gets built just like that - the area really needs more green space.

I'm not so crazy on those buildings being so tall, especially if they all are, and end up surrounding the park.
 
Thanks for the info. Am I wrong to assume all the parties from various nbhd groups and other condo buildings nearby are opposing this proposal based on views and other silliness? (I know views and more importantly sunshine is something everyone should have access to, but seems silly/selfish to me that when one is living in a 50 storey tower in the core of the city, one still demands their views be left untouched forever.)
 
Urban-Affair said:
Am I wrong to assume all the parties from various nbhd groups and other condo buildings nearby are opposing this proposal based on views and other silliness?
Click to expand...
Hahaha most likely, they were there to oppose the original height (252m) of Ten York
....I bet you there are already purchasers from 1 Bloor east lined up to challenge the height of The One:D
 
The Pinnacle Residents Association and the Toronto Island Residents Association are both listed as participants, meaning they'll get to present a statement. They can be questioned by parties at the hearing, but without party status themselves, they can't question others.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The Pinnacle Residents Association and the Toronto Island Residents Association are both listed as participants, meaning they'll get to present a statement. They can be questioned by parties at the hearing, but without party status themselves, they can't question others.

42
Click to expand...
Holy Mackerel, the "Toronto Island Residents Association" a community of freeloaders on Algonquin Island 3km. away, have a say on how to re-shape our skyline,.....Un-freakin-believable:eek:
 
Automation Gallery said:
Holy Mackerel, the "Toronto Island Residents Association" a community of freeloaders on Algonquin Island 3km. away, have a say on how to re-shape our skyline,.....Un-freakin-believable:eek:
Click to expand...
If the only people who get to state their views on changes to our City live adjacent to a development I fear UT would be rather quiet! What's so unbelievable that this group might have an opinion? Just because they are registered as 'participants' does not mean their views will prevail - in fact they may well support the proposal. In any case, the OMB's record would lead one to expect the developers to get their way.
 
There's a good chance that by the time the OMB hearing is underway, that everything between Pinnacle and the City will have been worked out already. Pinnacle have already made (and continue to make) significant alterations to the plan to take into account feedback from the City, Waterfront Toronto, the Design Review Panels (both the City's and WT's are weighing in on this), and maybe others as well. Frankly, I'd be surprised if anything the Island Residents had to offer would be of much interest to the Board, but hey, I'm up for the occasional surprise.

42
 
Big Daddy said:
It's in the city's interest to have a well designed, strong and successful development on this plot. To simply say "it's the developer's problem" doesn't answer the city's needs.

If there isn't significant profit opportunity, it reduces the list of interested developers and consequently we end up with a poorly designed development, built cheap and poorly operated and maintained. Frankly we have enough of these kind of developments, we need something much more and simply throwing zoning requirements at it doesn't solve the problem. There has to be balance to attract better developers.
Click to expand...

What are you implying the city should do if a developer paid too much for a property? Bend over and give them whatever they want?

It should be obvious by now that I'm a supporter of stronger zoning controls which takes the guess work out of property value. At the same time, some are getting caught up in bidding wars and putting forth ridiculously dense proposals to make up the difference. I hardly call this great city building from developers either.
 
Wouldn't it be great if these developers used warm tone colours other than blue green black or white. The last rendering of the 96 storey structure with the tan blue curtain wall was fine. I really loved the look of that building. But then back to black and white or blue green look again ! Is it too expensive to use other colours other than the blue,green look ?
 
maestro said:
What are you implying the city should do if a developer paid too much for a property? Bend over and give them whatever they want?

It should be obvious by now that I'm a supporter of stronger zoning controls which takes the guess work out of property value. At the same time, some are getting caught up in bidding wars and putting forth ridiculously dense proposals to make up the difference. I hardly call this great city building from developers either.
Click to expand...

You are obviously trying desperately hard to misinterpret what I said.

It should be obvious that, if there is little opportunity for profit in the purchase of the property, there will be few interested builders
and
whichever builder is successful in acquiring the property will look to cut costs in every conceivable way.
Is that clearer? is that desireble?

I would think there would be a far greater benefit to the city to ensure the property can be profitable - and the properties further east as well - so that the city can look forward to a better designed and built community. This by itself does not guarantee good design, but as 1-7 is proving, the opportunity for the developer to make a profit is keeping them at the negotiating table and we are seeing the design evolve into a more desirable development overall - even if it does require permitting additional height.
 
As an owner of a unit across the street from this where I live and work, on the 22nd floor, for 8 years, I have no concerns over loosing a portion of my view over the current parking lot. It's unrealistic to expect nothing in front of me forever. And if the city allows additional density to establish design improvements that enhance the area, parks, or a better ratio of amenity space or desirable access or court yard pedestrian spaces then I'm okay with it.

Even if it was built to the existing allowable densities we'd still not have views to the water from the 22nd floor. I'd loose some sun even if a 40 storey or a 90 storey is in front of me. But the higher it is the further reaching the darkening impact at street level will be. But, this is an urban city, and I'd hope the designers will be sensitive to this.

I often walk on Yonge between Queen and Front street and it is perpetually dark at street level. But at Front the sky opens up around the L Tower and in front of 18 Yonge and 16 Yonge the street level is bright from the sky all day, and bright with sun for half of the day. Space the building massing as best you can and step them in height as best you can.

I too am interested in seeing the evolving design.
 
Big Daddy said:
I would think there would be a far greater benefit to the city to ensure the property can be profitable - and the properties further east as well - so that the city can look forward to a better designed and built community. This by itself does not guarantee good design, but as 1-7 is proving, the opportunity for the developer to make a profit is keeping them at the negotiating table and we are seeing the design evolve into a more desirable development overall - even if it does require permitting additional height.
Click to expand...
Interesting thought, but not workable.

The problem is 1) that there is no one arbiter at the City who is granted the power to apply density bonuses based on what the developer paid for the land, 2) anyone who were in such a position could still only do so up to a point, as ultimately there would be some high purchase prices that just couldn't be compensated for while still being "good planning", and of course, 3) if there were a system in place to compensate a developer for overpaying for the land, the price of land would simply rise more steeply, anyway.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top