Dream + Quadrangle:

1592806177674.png


1592806909450.png


1592807209520.png


Subdivision concept plan (site plan):

1592806572478.png


1592807085817.png


Subdivision concept plan (massing model):

1592806711692.png


Notable revisions include:
  • The total proposed GFA reduced from 285,345 sq. metres to 285,304 sq. metres
  • The proposed residential GFA increased from 266,765 sq. metres to 269,191 sq. metres
  • The proposed non-residential retail GFA reduced from 4,180 sq. metres to 1,727 sq. metres
  • The number of residential units has been reduced from 3,710 to 3,547
  • The total proposed area of Parks & Open Spaces has increased from 3,500 sq. metres to 5,694 sq. metres
  • The number of towers proposed has been reduced from 10 to 8
 

Attachments

  • 1592806088270.png
    1592806088270.png
    176.8 KB · Views: 266
Last edited:
1592833971603.png


Not that this issue rides on this development/developer, but this image shows a critical parkland deficiency along Taylor-Massey Creek on the east side of Birchmount.

Critical, in that, there is no trail along the creek in this section, and very little room to put one in, above the flood line, without going through backyards, or claiming land currently occupied by retail, 41 division and TCHC.

Beyond recreational cycling/jogging, this link is critical because there is no park with a playground in the apartment community to the south; but there is one at Maidavale park.

So the trail would serve to provide an lower-income apartment community with access to parks amenities.

It would be nice if some of the development here set aside some money towards that goal.
 
Last edited:
And another concern on top of the park deficiency concern; the city better be careful with allowing all this density so as not to push out all of the industry that's currently in the area. We've seen it happen time and time again, where mass dense development occurs which eventually translates into surrounding land values being pushed up and industry eventually being pushed out as a result.

As for the development itself, its too dense for my liking mainly due to the reason I outlined above. Nevertheless, the towers themselves look very striking.
 
Amare said:
And another concern on top of the park deficiency concern; the city better be careful with allowing all this density so as not to push out all of the industry that's currently in the area. We've seen it happen time and time again, where mass dense development occurs which eventually translates into surrounding land values being pushed up and industry eventually being pushed out as a result.

As for the development itself, its too dense for my liking mainly due to the reason I outlined above. Nevertheless, the towers themselves look very striking.
Click to expand...
This is a valid concern but best addressed through Employment Lands preservation policies in the Official Plan and the news provincial PSEZ policies, not by holding down densities on nearby properties. Also keep in mind that applicants are required to study compatibility and prove that the new towers will not create issues for industry in terms of new restrictions on air quality, noise, and vibration.
 
ferusian said:
Dream + Quadrangle:

View attachment 252933

View attachment 252936

View attachment 252938

Subdivision concept plan (site plan):

View attachment 252934

View attachment 252937

Subdivision concept plan (massing model):

View attachment 252935

Notable revisions include:
  • The total proposed GFA reduced from 285,345 sq. metres to 285,304 sq. metres
  • The proposed residential GFA increased from 266,765 sq. metres to 269,191 sq. metres
  • The proposed non-residential retail GFA reduced from 4,180 sq. metres to 1,727 sq. metres
  • The number of residential units has been reduced from 3,710 to 3,547
  • The total proposed area of Parks & Open Spaces has increased from 3,500 sq. metres to 5,694 sq. metres
  • The number of towers proposed has been reduced from 10 to 8
Click to expand...
So do the developers just want to ignore the Golden Mile Secondary Plan? Will the plan even apply to the development once it's approved, or will it not (because the application was submitted prior to the plan's approval)?
 
Last edited:
Architecturally I'm pleasantly surprised. When I looked at the location I almost didn't bother clicking; assuming it would be low quality and characterless. Glad I checked.
 
Nice buildings love the punctured window look for these towers. It has that sixties seventies vibe !
 
Well the City has just about had it w/proponents of development along the Golden Mile..........this one is the third proposal to get a 'hell no' from City Planning in reports headed to the next meeting of Scarborough Community Council.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-164107.pdf

There's a long list of deficiencies that Staff identify here, this is just a small sample:

1613251847835.png
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
There’s a long list of deficiencies that Staff identify here, this is just a small sample:
Click to expand...
Staff did a secondary plan which the planners seemed proud of. Including some of the usual urban design flourishes, like height peaks. Of course this was always going to get done by lawyers haggling at the board. But staff may be especially unhappy about it.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Staff did a secondary plan which the planners seemed proud of. Including some of the usual urban design flourishes, like height peaks. Of course this was always going to get done by lawyers haggling at the board. But staff may be especially unhappy about it.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of other complaints across the 3 reports.

One has no or very little parkland, another didn't deliver the desired public roads; several didn't complete all the requisite studies or show a full layout for their sites.

I think staff have some very legitimate gripes here.

There may well be some questionable ones in there too.

But a lot of the initial proposals seem bulky and poorly massed.

I could care less about the height, beyond insuring reasonable growing conditions for trees and enjoyable parks.
 
It's pretty sad that the developers are ignoring the secondary plan. I feel like they're trying to push through their developments before the plan is in-force, which is really disheartening.
 
New ZBA application submitted on Jun. 7:

Development Applications

Updated project description:
Zoning By-law Amendment application for a mixed-use development on 4 blocks (1, 5, 7 & 10), with a total gross floor area of 213,314 sq. m (195,558 sq, m for residential uses; 1,73 sq. m of retail uses; and 16,013 sq. m of new and existing office uses), 2,363 residential units, and 1,834 parking spaces. The application is part of a master for the lands at 2200-2206 Eglinton Ave E, 1020-1030 Birchmount Rd and 75 Thermos Rd (Official Plan Amendment Application No. 18 206702 ESC 37 OZ). Block 1 would consist of a 2-storey addition to the existing office building at 2206 Eglinton Ave E. Block 5 would consist of two tall buildings with heights that range from 37 to 46 storeys. Block 7 would consist of a 30-storey building. Block 10 would consist of a tall building with a height that ranges from 20 to 30 storeys and 17 2-storey townhouses.
Click to expand...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

BDP Quadrangle: 46 storeys

Upated renderings:
AlbertC said:

2200 Eglinton Master Plan | BDP Quadrangle

Quadrangle Architects Limited is among Canada’s most dynamic architectural firms with a diversified client list that includes major players in the media, residential, commercial and hospitality industry.
www.bdpquadrangle.com www.bdpquadrangle.com


View attachment 328342View attachment 328343View attachment 328344
Click to expand...

Site plan:

1625132775908.png


Aerial view:

1625132718410.png


Parks and open space system:

1625132537682.png


Some notable revisions include:

1625132274704.png
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top