[maestro]

Wish our zoning had more teeth. It would streamline discussion with the focus more on design than the villainous planners curbing development which couldn't be further from the truth. That limiting density to a more acceptable level on this one particular property will only encourage further suburban growth is the perfect example. Always interesting to find out where the forumers that support unlimited density reside too. (to be clear, not directed at anyone in particular) Binding zoning controls would also benefit heritage preservation as air rights would become a lucrative commodity as height does tend to be less of a concern than density.

Not sure how the OMB would approach this. I'd guess Pinnacle Centre, Harbour Square, Pier 27 and, the East Bayfront would be the focus of any decision than the taller towers over by York Street. My bet is that Pinnacle isn't afraid of offending city planners as they are professionals afterall. It is more the uncertainty of the OMB's conclusion. Of course, The same applies to the other side of the coin.

 

[torontologist]

Stopped by Toronto of the Future today. It seems that the massing for this project has changed. The southern half of the project is shorter and squatter and attached to the existing Star building. The Northern half is only 3 towers, and the tallest is now a disjointed boxy style rather than the rounded tower in the renders.

 

[interchange42]

…and there's a walkway planned from Yonge Street diagonally through the site towards the new park which would be on the LCBO lands.

It's all still in flux. Apparently there will be a community update near the end of June.

42

 

[torontologist]

…and there's a walkway planned from Yonge Street diagonally through the site towards the new park which would be on the LCBO lands.

It's all still in flux. Apparently there will be a community update near the end of June.

42

Ah! That explains the gap on the south side of the LCBO lands. With Waterlink directly south, it'll avoid shadowing, which is ideal.

 

[Big Daddy]

It looks like the tallest building wont be much taller than the "lower case L" tower.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

For the foot of Yonge Street, that is terribly disappointing.

What is causing the reduction, economics or city planning?

 

[Ramako]

I think it might just be the angle in that photo. In real life it looked on par with First Canadian Place.

 

[torontologist]

I think it might just be the angle in that photo. In real life it looked on par with First Canadian Place.

Yup, still 300m+ based on this model.

 

[Armour]

Are those models and heights even indicative of what will be built, or are they merely just placeholders, showing the potential of the site?

 

[Praxus]

For the foot of Yonge Street, that is terribly disappointing.

What is causing the reduction, economics or city planning?

Wish we had planners who didn't have a reflexive hate for height and a love for mediocrity.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Wish we had planners who didn't have a reflexive hate for height and a love for mediocrity.

Considering how the north tower is seeing an increase in height, I am not at all sure what the "hate" part is about.

AoD

 

[torontologist]

Wish we had planners who didn't have a reflexive hate for height and a love for mediocrity.

If you want to blame someone for mediocrity, blame developers who only want to farm this city for money at the expense of the public realm, as well as investors who don't give a flip about architecture.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Plus height has nothing to do with quality (hello Aura!) - it may under the right conditions enable it, but that's something to be judged on a case by case basis.

AoD

 

[UrbanAffair]

If you want to blame someone for mediocrity, blame developers who only want to farm this city for money at the expense of the public realm, as well as investors who don't give a flip about architecture.

Very true, and bonus points for the pun.

 

[G.L.17]

Maybe the new boxy shape would bring some form of quality decency. Still won't hold my breath on that.