The database has been updated with revised statistics from the Minor Variance.

Main changes are as follows:
- Storey count increased from 34 to 37.
- Height increased from 114.9m to 121.14m.
- Total units increased from 440 to 499.
- Total vehicular parking decreased from 31 to 0.
- Total bicycle parking increased from 442 to 500.

Updated renderings from the revised plans of December 2023:
DEF - Plans(Revised) - 316 Bloor_Architectural Plans (003)-0.jpg

DEF - Plans(Revised) - 316 Bloor_Architectural Plans (003)-108.jpg
DEF - Plans(Revised) - 316 Bloor_Architectural Plans (003)-109.jpg
DEF - Plans(Revised) - 316 Bloor_Architectural Plans (003)-110.jpg
DEF - Plans(Revised) - 316 Bloor_Architectural Plans (003)-111.jpg
DEF - Plans(Revised) - 316 Bloor_Architectural Plans (003)-112.jpg
 
Last edited:
Putting aside that Kirkor blight I have to stare at for the ages from my window...
- Storey count increased from 34 to 47.
- Height increased from 114.9m to 121.14m.

...residents who play professional basketball there are going to be bumping their heads on the ceiling quite a bit, unless that's a typo. 🙀
 
Putting aside that Kirkor blight I have to stare at for the ages from my window...


...residents who play professional basketball there are going to be bumping their heads on the ceiling quite a bit, unless that's a typo. 🙀

My mistake, Yes that was a typo, the correct storey count is 37 as listed in the thread title & database page.
 
The database has been updated with revised statistics from the Minor Variance.

Main changes are as follows:
- Storey count increased from 34 to 37.
- Height increased from 114.9m to 121.14m.
- Total units increased from 440 to 499.
- Total vehicular parking decreased from 31 to 0.
- Total bicycle parking increased from 442 to 500.

Updated renderings from the revised plans of December 2023:

Amazed that these type of minor (some major) variances seem to be the new norm for CofA. Negotiate like hell with the city & public. Settle on a height (storey count) to avoid the OLT and then try and change it later at CofA? What gives?
 
Amazed that these type of minor (some major) variances seem to be the new norm for CofA. Negotiate like hell with the city & public. Settle on a height (storey count) to avoid the OLT and then try and change it later at CofA? What gives?

You've got it exactly.

Some of it is chutzpah; some is nudge and wink from the Planner or Councillor (ie, I can't be seen to endorse this at this height; but I wouldn't stand in your way if you went to C of A.) Let's make a deal.

It's also worth observing whether there has been a change in councillor since the zoning approval............some patterns may become visible. ;)
 
Amazed that these type of minor (some major) variances seem to be the new norm for CofA. Negotiate like hell with the city & public. Settle on a height (storey count) to avoid the OLT and then try and change it later at CofA? What gives?
Yep. In a downward market, everyone is doing what they can to save their projects. More density is the easiest thing to make it all look better for now.
You've got it exactly.

Some of it is chutzpah; some is nudge and wink from the Planner or Councillor (ie, I can't be seen to endorse this at this height; but I wouldn't stand in your way if you went to C of A.) Let's make a deal.

It's also worth observing whether there has been a change in councillor since the zoning approval............some patterns may become visible. ;)
This only came back when Ford lifted the 2 year moratorium on CoA modifications to in-force by-laws earlier this year. With Bill 109 and now OPA688, everyone on both sides of the table is trying just to find some stability in these new waters.

Where we are today isn't where we'll be in 6 months either...
 
Update: The site is now fully back filled. And so tightly, one could mistaken it for concrete...goodness.
 
Update: And in the spirit of "Wow, that was fast!", a large shoring rig with respective I-beam thingamabobs are now on site.

Also, can @Northern Light , et al check on the permission slips on this...assuming I haven't missed anything here yet. I didn't think they'd be ready for this stage for months.
 
Update: And in the spirit of "Wow, that was fast!", a large shoring rig with respective I-beam thingamabobs are now on site.

Also, can @Northern Light , et al check on the permission slips on this...assuming I haven't missed anything here yet. I didn't think they'd be ready for this stage for months.

I believe they have permission under this permit:

1705551754692.png


So only for the portion of the shoring that is necessary to allow the TTC works.

***

The remaining shoring permits are in process:

Based on the last communications on file, not an urgent priority, as per @ProjectEnd 's previous supposition.

1705551875094.png


Though, I have to assume they will consolidate shoring activities in this process as to not do so would be accretive to costs under normal circumstances.

Why shore twice when you can shore once?
 

A recent development application for a property at 316 Bloor St. W. has hit a roadblock with city councillor Dianne Saxe and local residents raising concerns.

The original plan included a 29-story mixed-use building, at a height of 98 metres. However, the developer later sought permission from the city’s committee of adjustment to increase the structure’s height to 121.4 meters, along with other variances in the gross floor area and amenity space. In the letter for the development application requesting the additional height, there was a direct reference to the need for more housing in the city, amongst other reasons for the increase.

In December, the Toronto East York Panel of the Committee of Adjustment approved the requests from the developer with conditions including a cash contribution allocated towards community facilities, recreation, cultural space, and/or streetscape improvements within Ward 11.

This application typically only requires the Committee of Adjustment’s approval for such amendments, but in a letter dated earlier this month, Saxe raised concerns that these changes were not “minor” but significant alterations impacting the community’s character and infrastructure. She highlighted the substantial increase in height and the reduction in outdoor amenity space, arguing that such modifications necessitate a more thorough review process.

Councillor Saxe recommended that city council “authorize the city solicitor to both appeal and attend the Toronto Local Appeal Body,” to determine whether the variances approved by the committee were indeed minor, and to retain outside consultants as necessary.

The Annex Residents’ Association sent a letter of support echoing Saxe’s sentiment on the development. With Committee of Adjustment approval, under new rules in the development process, residents association have no recourse to challenge the new requests.

“Under recent regulation, the community has no right to appeal this decision,” wrote Rita Bitterman, chair of the Annex Residents’ Association, in a letter to city council. “And that is why we urge Council to approve TE10.42-316 directing City Legal to take the decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).”
Under recent regulation, the community has no right to appeal this decision. And that is why we urge Council to approve TE10.42-316 directing City Legal to take the decision to the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB).
This issue brings to light the ongoing trend in the city that sees developers topping up already approved condo developments to add more units, or height or both.

Oren Tamir, Toronto’s acting director of community planning, agree that the reason is at least partly due to the necessary push for new housing by all levels of government. Tamir adds that going to committee of adjustment for top-ups is usually a fast and efficient process.

“The committee of adjustment process is typically faster than a zoning bylaw amendment,” he explained. “The decision is made by the Committee of Adjustment and there is public notice for that. The public can provide input and comments at the committee directly. It is a public process. There is room for public input.”

This item was scheduled for Toronto and East York Community Council on Jan. 24 and city council on Feb. 6.

The full details and background documents related to this case are available on the City of Toronto’s website.
 
I was raised and still own property in the Annex, the Annex Residents Association objects to anything and everything, they have always been that way. IMO i agree that they should be able to build taller, this site is next door to the subway, dedicated streetcar route and the University of Toronto, the city will also benefit with more housing, more taxes and cash contribution for the community. It's a win win situation except for the Annex Residents Association.
 

Back
Top