- Thread starter dt_toronto_geek
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Based on a cursory look at the site, I don't see intensification as viable here.
There is no room for an additional tower within the current site,
One could conceivably do an addition on the current building, but that's complex and a royal hassle.
Assuming total replacement, I simply can't make it work when I run the numbers.
I mean if the City gave 1000m2 floor plates a pass.........maybe.......but a very tough sell I would think.
abovegrade
Active Member
man this whole area is a retail desert. So disappointing it's mostly just towers.
rdaner
Senior Member
Would a 70-80s tower make numbers work? I’m not advocating it but in the current political and economic climate it may be what is being looked at by developers.
MaybeThisTimeIllWin
New Member
Brookfield Properties has purchased 77 Davisville! Village Green too based on job postings.
Northern Light
Superstar
Ok then..............I stand corrected from Post number 2 in this thread...............
Brookfield (now the owner here) has managed to thread the needle with an infill proposal.
They've managed this with a mixture of reliance on the blank wall condition of the east face of 33 Davisville, along with some interesting massing choices. The separation distances are still tight'ish in spots.......but it does appear workable.
Aerial Pic of Site, inclusive of existing building to remain:
The new building would on the western portion of this site, between 77 and 33.
Site, as is, per Streetview:
The App:
www.toronto.ca
@Paclo
For the title:
Proponent: Brookfield
Address: New Building to be assigned 55 Davisville
Height: 37s +MPH
Architect: Core
From the above:
Just one render:
* mid post comment, I think the above shows why I had trouble imagining fitting a tower here. The reliance on a blank wall condition is used to justify below normative separation to 33 Davisville
Separation to the existing 77 Davisville to the east also just barely makes the cut, running as tightly as 20.4M
Using a close-up of the Site Plan below, you can see the E-W separation distances: (for those unfamiliar with reading these, where you see a 5 digit number, the left hand spot is M in tens, then ones, the last 3 are to the right of the decimal)
N-S Separation:
Overall Siteplan:
Ground Floor Plan:
Upper Podium layout:
Tower level layout:
Elevator Ratio: 4 elevators to 400 units, or 1 per 100 units.
Residual comments:
Absurd Parkland dedication should be refused. They can buy offsite or provide cash in lieu, the City does not need to mow a developer's lawn, let them do their own.
I don't see an issue w/the height, but were I resident at 77 Davisville, I don't know that I would love that separation distance. (that side not a blank wall) The reduced parking supply for an existing building is also interesting.
Brookfield (now the owner here) has managed to thread the needle with an infill proposal.
They've managed this with a mixture of reliance on the blank wall condition of the east face of 33 Davisville, along with some interesting massing choices. The separation distances are still tight'ish in spots.......but it does appear workable.
Aerial Pic of Site, inclusive of existing building to remain:
The new building would on the western portion of this site, between 77 and 33.
Site, as is, per Streetview:
The App:
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
@Paclo
For the title:
Proponent: Brookfield
Address: New Building to be assigned 55 Davisville
Height: 37s +MPH
Architect: Core
From the above:
Just one render:
* mid post comment, I think the above shows why I had trouble imagining fitting a tower here. The reliance on a blank wall condition is used to justify below normative separation to 33 Davisville
Separation to the existing 77 Davisville to the east also just barely makes the cut, running as tightly as 20.4M
Using a close-up of the Site Plan below, you can see the E-W separation distances: (for those unfamiliar with reading these, where you see a 5 digit number, the left hand spot is M in tens, then ones, the last 3 are to the right of the decimal)
N-S Separation:
Overall Siteplan:
Ground Floor Plan:
Upper Podium layout:
Tower level layout:
Elevator Ratio: 4 elevators to 400 units, or 1 per 100 units.
Residual comments:
Absurd Parkland dedication should be refused. They can buy offsite or provide cash in lieu, the City does not need to mow a developer's lawn, let them do their own.
I don't see an issue w/the height, but were I resident at 77 Davisville, I don't know that I would love that separation distance. (that side not a blank wall) The reduced parking supply for an existing building is also interesting.
Last edited:
artemperederii
Active Member
they’re killing such a good green portion between two buildings. We don’t want to live in the concrete…Amare
Senior Member
Good to see that Brookfield really doesnt care about living conditions, and are still interested in creating investor style boxes that only add to their bottom line.
These are truthfully dreadful unit layouts.
It's amazing how much they've changed from a firm that actually cared about the quality of their buildings 30 years ago, to a $$$$ firm today that cares solely about $$$$$ and nothing more.
These are truthfully dreadful unit layouts.
It's amazing how much they've changed from a firm that actually cared about the quality of their buildings 30 years ago, to a $$$$ firm today that cares solely about $$$$$ and nothing more.
DF416604
New Member
Is this a facetious comment? I can't tell if this is a joke. These are zoning drawings so more detail is of course to follow. The units themselves are typical. They've designed this more like a rental from an operating standpoint (e.g., double shaft).
I am interested to see that they skewed heavily to 1+D and even 2+D.
For what it's worth, I think this plan is pretty reasonable. 20.5m is textbook midtown nowadays, and it's not along the entire face from my understanding (what is it, a 10m long run with 20.5m, the rest greater than 27m?)
Not understanding why the parkland dedication is so hated by other commenters given that it interfaces with the proposed dedication next door. The City has clearly been pushing for that.
70Challenger
Active Member
Nice infill over some pedestrian-hostile space.
Northern Light
Superstar
Amare was a bit harsh.....but he's not wrong to note that several units have excessive corridor/entry spaces that aren't usuable. A common problem in contemporary unit layouts. The presence of elevators and stairs will certainly require the odd unit to have some 'extra' space that isn't ideal, this is not a terrible layout be any means, in the contemporary context. Still, there is definite room for improvement.
A case can be made for this, but 20.5M is definitely on the narrow side.
That's easy, the park is too small, even with a possible dedication next door to be remotely usable. You literally could not include a single, full sized children's playground, nor anything else. A Tennis Court, and I mean literally one doubles court would consume over 1/2 the available space.
It lacks any utility and small parks add significant operating costs for the City. Spend the money to enlarge an existing nearby park to a usable size.
Last edited: