Circa 1877 (née Brick Brewery) | 20 fl | Complete

[dubya]

How much separation between towers does Waterloo require?  I see what you're saying wrt Red, but it seems to me that there is adequate space for another tower on the Adult Rec Centre site.   Given the depth of the Brick site, I don't see how you could develop a condo that did not have units opening out to that side.

There are a number of ways in which the developer could address the fact the likelihood of towers being built on either side of this structure is high to assure long term quality of sunlight and views for the buyers from whom they will be taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in a swanky sales centre.

If the builder won't think long term, then it should be required for the city to do so. This lack of long term thinking in local planning is why 100 Vic is being held up by OMB hearings (and justly so), with the site situation of the proposed structures severely limiting high rise redevelopment of the adjoining site at some point in the future. 

Here are a couple of examples.

One is to create side yard setbacks on a lower part of the structure allowing them to maximize the site while the portions of the building abutting the adjoining sites have no units facing directly onto the inside of the block at the property line. Something like this with the lower portion clearly intended for this purpose as an example:


Or this:


An alternative is to build a point tower, taller than you otherwise would (say 30 stories in this case, rather than 20) but with a smaller footprint. The remainder of the site can then be used for townhomes or small businesses. This would force the builder to construct an alley on either side of the building, thereby sacrificing some space but this is made up in height of the point tower. We see that a few doors down with what was done at Bauer. This enables a future developer to build another tower on the opposite end of the block from the existing one (beside where the townhouses are). Here is an example: