HousingNowTO
Senior Member
"Estimated Construction Start: July 2026"
(end-date : Q1-2028, which seems very long for a MASS-TIMBER building at only 94-units).
SOURCE - https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.RA24.2
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
"Estimated Construction Start: July 2026"
(end-date : Q1-2028, which seems very long for a MASS-TIMBER building at only 94-units).
SOURCE - https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2026.RA24.2
jmi22
Active Member
This whole project, from the 3 month brick by brick "deconstruction" of the single house on the lot, bloated construction timeline and the year and a half of "site preparation" for a empty lot - REEKS of graft or at least near criminally incompetent management of public funds. If TPS wasn't busy with their own, uh... issues, I'd recommended an investigation.
Northern Light
Superstar
SPA is in to the AIC.
No change in height, or architects............
But if the docs are to be be believed, 20 housing units have disappeared, with this dropping from 94 to 74. If so, I assume there's been an increase in family units..
From the Project Data Sheet:
Stats. (From the Arch. Drawings)
Ground Floor Plan (Orange is retail, and fronts Dundas)
Oh....and you thought I forgot.............. Current Renders:
No change in height, or architects............
But if the docs are to be be believed, 20 housing units have disappeared, with this dropping from 94 to 74. If so, I assume there's been an increase in family units..
From the Project Data Sheet:
Stats. (From the Arch. Drawings)
Ground Floor Plan (Orange is retail, and fronts Dundas)
Oh....and you thought I forgot.............. Current Renders:
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Noting, for the record - that Brook Mcllroy who did the 2023 conceptual plan for this site is now no longer in business as of April 2026 -
Last week, Brook McIlroy closed its doors after more than 25 years. It was an unexpected and difficult moment, and one that marks the end of a firm that contributed so meaningfully to the built… | Luke Mollet | 16 comments
Last week, Brook McIlroy closed its doors after more than 25 years. It was an unexpected and difficult moment, and one that marks the end of a firm that contributed so meaningfully to the built environment and to so many communities. I'm incredibly grateful to have been a part of such a fun...
www.linkedin.com
Comparison of 2026 numbers to the "Demonstration Plan" stats from CreateTO in March 2023 -
TOTAL GFA (2023) = 7,730 m2
TOTAL GFA (2026) = 6,279 m2
Unit Mix (2023)
Studio = 18
1-Bedroom = 56
2-Bedroom = 15
3-Bedroom = 5
Unit Mix (2026)
Studio = 0
1-Bedroom = 42
2-Bedroom = 25
3-Bedroom = 7
Revised 2026 plan cuts away 32-units of Studio & 1-Bedroom apartments, and converts them into adding 12 x more 2-Bedroom / 3-Bedroom apartments, also it looks like they are also bumping-up the average sq. ft size of all of the apartments, with even the smallest units being 600+ sq ft...?
The City and CreateTO may already have a specific operator in mind for this project where those unit-mix choices make sense, but I can't see how they will help the overall delivery of 'affordable rents' on this site -- or any options for 'deeply affordable' on any of the units..?
As a simple example of 'strange choices', does a tiny 'Affordable Rental' project like this really need a stand-alone mini-gym on-site when your priority is supposed to be trying to deliver affordable rental housing on these surplus lands, when you have a full City recreation centre and pool on Crawford Street a 6-minute walk away..?
Northern Light
Superstar
Noting, for the record - that Brook Mcllroy who did the 2023 conceptual plan for this site is now no longer in business as of April 2026 -
Last week, Brook McIlroy closed its doors after more than 25 years. It was an unexpected and difficult moment, and one that marks the end of a firm that contributed so meaningfully to the built… | Luke Mollet | 16 comments
Last week, Brook McIlroy closed its doors after more than 25 years. It was an unexpected and difficult moment, and one that marks the end of a firm that contributed so meaningfully to the built environment and to so many communities. I'm incredibly grateful to have been a part of such a fun...
Comparison of 2026 numbers to the "Demonstration Plan" stats from CreateTO in March 2023 -
TOTAL GFA (2023) = 7,730 m2
TOTAL GFA (2026) = 6,279 m2
Unit Mix (2023)
Studio = 18
1-Bedroom = 56
2-Bedroom = 15
3-Bedroom = 5
Unit Mix (2026)
Studio = 0
1-Bedroom = 42
2-Bedroom = 25
3-Bedroom = 7
Revised 2026 plan cuts away 32-units of Studio & 1-Bedroom apartments, and converts them into adding 12 x more 2-Bedroom / 3-Bedroom apartments, also it looks like they are also bumping-up the average sq. ft size of all of the apartments, with even the smallest units being 600+ sq ft...?
The City and CreateTO may already have a specific operator in mind for this project where those unit-mix choices make sense, but I can't see how they will help the overall delivery of 'affordable rents' on this site -- or any options for 'deeply affordable' on any of the units..?
As a simple example of 'strange choices', does a tiny 'Affordable Rental' project like this really need a stand-alone mini-gym on-site when your priority is supposed to be trying to deliver affordable rental housing on these surplus lands, when you have a full City recreation centre and pool on Crawford Street a 6-minute walk away..?
Agree on the gym, this is why one my remaining 'Planning' projects is to reduce or eliminate mandatory amenity space.
I do, however, have a sympathy for larger unit sizes, I think of that as a necessary move for livability.
AlbertC
Superstar
Don't completely hate it but this gives off more of a university institutional vibe. A bit more stoic than what I've prefer to see at Dundas & Ossington.
rdaner
Senior Member
This is going to be highly visible as most of the West End is much lower.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
...for now...
NY99
Active Member
I do hate it. Sterile, dark, sad. Could they not have made the massing red, for God’s sake?
NY99
Active Member
Continuing my multi-thread diatribe against Toronto architects’ obsession with asymmetry (I’m clearly in a bad mood lol):
I see a couple examples where they're substituting real design for asymmetry. They look, to my untrained eyes, totally needless. Presumably it’s to feel like they're actually designing something other than a hulking, awkward, unornamented, uninteresting mass.
Take rendering # 6 for example: the spacing of the window columns from left to right is actually kind of hilarious. See below for a representation:
Thick window —> big gap —> thin window —> thick window —> slightly smaller gap than before —> thin window —> thin window —> thick window
Does this seemingly random sequence actually serve a purpose? Is there some legitimate technical design reason for doing it this way? I never see this sort of randomness on older buildings. They stuck to their symmetry pretty darn well. Again, my sense is that this sort of asymmetry is a reflexive modern design habit.
If I were the project proponent, I’d immediately regularize the building layout. That means only one type of window with uniform width, evenly spaced out across the massing. I’d also make the building more box-like, funny enough — I’d eliminate the weird offset seen in the second photo causing the upper portion to look like two cubes fused together.
Whatever meagre savings these changes create would go straight into procuring red cladding (which, judging by most recent Toronto projects, has a huge markup over saturated gloomy colours at the cladding store). And if I’m feeling risqué, I’d add a little visual interest to the ground floor (perhaps incorporating a simple, cheap, mass-producable motif inserted between the ground and second floors, adding texture and delineating the different uses — see 1071 King West or INDX condos for nice examples of that).
probably a good idea for me to step off my soapbox right about now. Would love to hear people’s thoughts on this.
Northern Light
Superstar
Its a fine reason to diatribe , I've done it myself.
In general, No. Though in terms of simply gapping between windows it may line up w/where bathrooms area or structural supports. But as you noted, older buildings typically worked around this.........
Broadly agreed. I find the wildly different windows in some designs and their non-aligned placement visually off putting
See this one for such an example:
. https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...32-3m-8s-collecdev-markee-batay-csorba.30909/
Yes, the ground floor and/or lower levels could use some sort of visual separation.
You got it.