Mattamy playing the long game with this site appears to be beneficial for all. With each iteration seeming like an upgrade over the last with the direction we're heading in.
 
IMG_7533.JPG
IMG_7532.JPG
 
What @ProjectEnd was hinting at can now be seen, in the form of a new submission to the AIC.

This one has indeed grown by 140% to 24s.

Architect is now StudioJCI

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

From the above:

1699708753472.png


1699708804312.png


1699708848980.png


Site Plan:

1699708926506.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1699708960641.png



1699709015156.png

Parking Ratio: (resident only) 0.2

Elevator Ratio: 0.98 elevators per 100 units

Not at all unusual, but I must note some atrocious unit layouts:

1699709321542.png


Look at those corner units and how much functional space they lose to huge entry corridors. Just split those micro 1bdrm units into the adjacent spaces and create livable space, with functional layouts! Less greed people!

Landscape/Planting Plan is solid; acceptable soil volumes, use of soil cells, and irrigation provided. The LAs still don't know what 'native' means ( its not cultivars people); but give or take the Ginko, I'm ok wthe plant list.

****

Additional Comments: PE must tell us if an offer was made/refused to the owner of the one remaining SFH on the block; it will be surrounded by towers, but with a stranded site that no one can build on.

The height ask isn't unreasonable, though it is taller than the immediately adjacent sites fronting Yonge Street which top out at 22s; Typical City instinct would be to want to taper the height down away from Yonge; while I imagine the applicant is eyeing the 32st approval on Yonge just to the south to make 24 seem reasonable.

I'm fine w/it.

Would prefer to see the remaining SFH bought out and the block logically completed.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Additional Comments: PE must tell us if an offer was made/refused to the owner of the one remaining SFH on the block; it will be surrounded by towers, but with stranded site that no one can build on.


Would prefer to see the remaining SFH bought out and the block logically completed.
Click to expand...

While the hold-out Single Family House lot would itself be way too small to support a Condo tower - this lot will have Height and Density rights afforded to it under the North York Centre Secondary Plan - making it a valuable lot to be used by another Developer for Height and Density Transfer to another project. If this project gets approval for extra Height and Density at OMB/OLT - then the Developer buying this Single Family House lot would be justified to argue for similar Height and Density to be Transferred onto their project. After all that, this Single Family House lot would likely be conveyed to City as Section 42 Parkland Dedication to become another parkette,....
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
While the hold-out Single Family House lot would itself be way too small to support a Condo tower - this lot will have Height and Density rights afforded to it under the North York Centre Secondary Plan - making it a valuable lot to be used by another Developer for Height and Density Transfer to another project. If this project gets approval for extra Height and Density at OMB/OLT - then the Developer buying this Single Family House lot would be justified to argue for similar Height and Density to be Transferred onto their project. After all that, this Single Family House lot would likely be conveyed to City as Section 42 Parkland Dedication to become another parkette,....
Click to expand...

We all know how I feel about small, useless parks. LOL
 
New stats added to the database. The storey count changed from 10 storeys to 24 storeys. Height changed from 38.60m to 79.75m. Total unit count increased from 111 units to 305 units. Finally, the total parking space count reduced from 113 parking to 80 parking.

Rendering taken from the arch plan via rezoning submission.
 
toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com


26-38 Hounslow Avenue - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting​


Monday, February 12, 2024 6:30 PM - 8:00 PM
(UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

A development proposal has been submitted for 26, 28, 36 and 38 Hounslow Avenue, seeking to permit the construction of a 24-storey residential building, containing 305 units and 18,737 square metres of total gross floor area, resulting in a density of 8.68 times the area of the site. The proposal includes 1,350 square metres of indoor and outdoor amenity space and 2 levels of underground parking which will contain 80 vehicular parking spaces and 264 bicycle parking spaces.

Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to participate in discussions on the application and have your say.
 
This is from the existing condo at 5444 Yonge. Usual complaints. I do remember when 5444 was constructed and it created NONE of the issues below lol.

March 14, 2024
SUBJECT: MATTAMY HOMES DEVELOPMENT 26-38 Hounslow Avenue
NOTICE OF PETITION
As most of you are aware, Mattamy Homes is seeking City Council approval to build a 24-story building behind Skyview.
The impact on our building will include:
  • - Obstruction of views
  • - Reduction of sunlight in our outdoor space
  • - Negative effect on property values
  • - Congestion and Population Density. There are 5 proposed condo building within 5 blocks of Skyview. Total number of proposed new units is approximately 2,500, resulting in an influx of about 3,700 people in our immediate vicinity.
  • - Parking Problem: New city by-laws state that developments close to subways do not need to provide parking for all residents. There will be a shortfall of over 1,000 parking spots in the 5 buildings around us. This shortage may result in our available street parking being greatly strained or consumed by Permanent Parking Permit-holders.
  • - Significant impact on sidewalk traffic, car traffic, subways, buses, restaurants and parks.
  • - Years of construction noise and hazardous construction dust will negatively impact the environment of our pool, tennis courts, picnic and garden area. The building will be within a metre of our lot line which may render the backyard unusable for the years of construction.
  • - Safety Concerns. During the construction years, how will residents using our outside space be protected from inhaled industrial dust and flying debris. Our outdoor area sits at the base of the proposed building and is extremely well-populated almost all year round. The physical and mental health of our residents is at risk.
    Let’s unite in a common cause to protect our Skyview Condominium!
    A petition has been drawn up to be presented to our City Councillor, Lily Cheng, and to the City Planning Department.
    It will be available for signatures on P1 and in the lobby as follows: Wednesday March 20 from 10 – 12, 2 – 4 and 6 – 8
    Friday March 22 from 10 – 12 and 2 – 4.
    If you are unable to come at these times, we will come to you. Leave your name and phone number at the front desk for a home visit to sign.
Click to expand...
 
Edward Skira said:
This is from the existing condo at 5444 Yonge. Usual complaints. I do remember when 5444 was constructed and it created NONE of the issues below lol.
Click to expand...

Funny thing, virtually none of those are actionable reasons that City Council/Planning can issue a Refusal.

In fact, only one, the shadowing issue has any legal resonance, and likely not as much as they would hope.

The rest, if taken seriously, are matters for mitigation or conditions (ie. Construction Management Plan)

The sillyness here is that this proposal almost certainly represents an opportunity for the adjacent owners to negotiate some improvements to the community that might actually raise property values etc etc.

What a silly thing to waste that opportunity with such poor arguments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top