innsertnamehere

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
21,175
Reaction score
28,659
I think this one has been missed as I can't find a thread.. April 2 application for 35st building near Guildwood GO:

1744807657584.png
 
innsertnamehere said:
I think this one has been missed as I can't find a thread.. April 2 application for 35st building near Guildwood GO:

View attachment 644561
Click to expand...

Do you have an AIC link for it?

When I searched Scarborough, Community Planning, Last 30 days just now...... I get zero apps.
 
innsertnamehere said:
app.toronto.ca

Application Details

app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca

edit: huh.. that's the link it's giving me, but it's deadlink. I promise it's showing up on the AIC for me!
Click to expand...

LOL, you're special, I've always said so! :)


See if you can pull the application number, and I'll see if I can search it that way.
 
While we wait for @innsertnamehere to unravel the mystery....... Lets see what I can dig up.

www.blacktuskgroup.com

402-408 Livingston Road N | Black Tusk

e9dbb28a-b725-40e3-b150-bf59770e80db
www.blacktuskgroup.com www.blacktuskgroup.com

No info that we don't have at that link.

But lets have a look at the properties in question.

Aerial view:

1744836630016.png


Site size: ~5700m2 or about 61,000ft2.

Streetview:

1744836780034.png


Comments:

I'm fascinated as to how they think they can pull this off. Its on a residential side street with no sidewalk, well below the height of Kingston Road, with the adjacent rail corridor, set to be electrified, adding further complexity, and they can't access from the west, as they are adjacent to Scarborough Golf Club.

****

That said, the site is nominally large enough for two towers............so why just one when we're being ambitious?
 
That worked for me! Thanks.

Docs incoming later tonight....
 
Ok, here we go:

Render:

1744847425951.png


Elevations:

1744847517801.png


1744847591037.png


Site Plan:

1744847309246.png



Ground Floor Plan:

1744847365738.png


1744847022381.png

1744847043949.png

1744847082389.png

1744846995611.png


Parking Ratio: 0.7 (residential spaces only)

Elevator Ratio: 4 per 442 units is 1 per 110.5 units

@Paclo

@HousingNowTO shall be notified of this applications for a high density residential development proximal to (but not within) an MTSA. He shall also be told not to invest much effort here as this one has only a slightly greater chance than zero of being approved.

Comments:

Ridiculous! Makes no sense! What are they thinking? LOL

IT wouldn't be impossible to do something like this, in this area, one day. But with no functional connection to Kingston Road, high density plugged in at the dead end of a residential side street, boxed in by the railway, with Kingston Rd. elevated on bridge, Scarborough Golf Club.........and over 300 cars of parking........did I mention this is yellowbelt?

I don't think so.
 
The location is a little crazy, but to make it truly front onto Kingston Road, would locating the primary entrance on the second/third floor to exit out onto Kingston Road be possible? Would rely on the property lines coming right up to the bridge and not being pinched off by the Metrolinx row.
1744925540198.png
1744925566647.png

This old industrial building at the south east corner of Dundas West and Sorauren seems to pull it off
 
jmi22 said:
but to make it truly front onto Kingston Road, would locating the primary entrance on the second/third floor to exit out onto Kingston Road be possible?
Click to expand...

It is possible in theory, though I doubt the City would permit it in this day in age.........

However, the only way it would be considered feasible is not only if the Mx ROW weren't in the way, but if the property line abutted the embanked portion of the bridge (as opposed to the deck)

If you look at this site:

1744926194674.png


The proposal is on the land on the right hand side of the picture.

But directly to the south/front is the rail ROW and the deck of the bridge.

The embanked portion of the road is behind the steel retaining wall on the left hand side, which is also across the publicly owned Livingston Rd ROW.

I think any connection here, even for pedestrians is likely outside of the feasible range.

****

That, however is but one of many issues here.

Even just for pedestrians, the premise here for density is proximity to the GO Station. But if you had an access out on the bridge, there is no crossing to the other side, on a busy six-lane arterial road, and no convenient access to the station.

Any station access here would have to go under the bridge, and within the Rail R.O.W. which would require Mx permission, obviously, but would also likely be quite expensive. Chances are it would be a tunnel.

But....there's still the matter of vehicle access, which is currently (as proposed) via a small side street with no sidewalks for over 300 cars. To shift vehicle access to the bridge would be much more expensive and challenging, and would require the parking access to be above-ground and presumably the parking too.

This just isn't workable.
 
I agree, in it's current state just has a lot of unworkable oddities. Really the whole isolated chunk of homes should be developed coherently and have its own SASP. The potential for a pedestrian tunnel directly east to connect to the Guildwood GO parking lot seems plausible, but premising a whole development on Metrolinx doing something on time is not justifiable.

The last hail mary attempt could be converting it to a rental building and massively cutting parking to get away with access off Livingston. Whether or not there is demand for that, who knows.
 
...adding this to the watch-list given the proximity to 80 DALE AVE.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top