N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,911
Reaction score
89,557
A new application is into the AIC for this site, at the north-east corner of Church and Wellesley in Toronto's gay village.

1707313076050.png


The AIC link indicates this is an SPA; however, it includes the Planning Rationale Report, so it is likely either the ZBA or OPA.

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

The OPA is required for the following reason:

"The Official Plan Amendment is required to exempt the site from specific massing and shadowing provisions in Site and Area Specific
Policy 382 and the Zoning By-law Amendment will set the development parameters."

In plain English, this proposal will shadow Barbara Hall Park, which is a shadow-protected space.

In the first render below, the perspective is a bit odd, you're looking at the tower in the centre.

1707313553628.png

1707313590925.png


1707313620170.png


1707313655372.png


Below, its the white tower at Centre-Right:

1707313701112.png



1707313726102.png


Site Plan:

1707313820298.png



Ground Floor Plan:

1707313881567.png

1707313767386.png


Parking Ratio: Nil - Zero Resident Spaces

Elevator Ratio: 2 elevators to 258 units or 1 to every 129 units. (0.78 elevators per 100 units)

@3Dementia is summoned to examine, archive and distribute the renders

While @Paclo is flagged for the required database file.
 
Northern Light said:
A new application is into the AIC for this site, at the north-east corner of Church and Wellesley in Toronto's gay village.

@3Dementia is summoned to examine, archive and distribute the renders

While @Paclo is flagged for the required database file.
Click to expand...
b9b2cf64-b146-411f-8e5f-bb5bd6769ceb_text.gif

Link
 
3 elevators here please. 2 is an awful ratio, especially considering how often one will be in service leaving only a single elevator to serve 250+ units.

Otherwise, the application looks pretty good to me.

Generally, I'm loving all these 0-parking developments.

Not-so-fun-fact: Most of these 0-parking applications are still asking for parking amendments as the City has retained fairly significant accessible and a small visitor parking ratio which would generally still require a level of underground parking in most buildings. This one would be asking for no accessible parking and a reduced visitor ratio here so that it can provide only 3 parking spaces.
 
I’m betting 12 stories, hence only two elevators, they know 26 levels won’t fly.
 
Kingsett also owns several of the buildings on the south side of Wellesley with only a few exceptions going almost to Maitland so this may be the first in a series of proposals.
 
I'll give them credit for using materials and a colour palette other than window wall and blue/grey, but the design is quite slap-dash and similar to The Social.
 
Thanks, I hate it.

Aside from the obvious shadowing issues on the park, doesn't this run into the problem of there being only a 4 story streetwall, with step backs beyond that, allowed along this section of Church? because as you can see in the renders, that clearly has been applied to the proposal on the West side of the street (which is why the original design for that project was scrapped). So Idk if they just ignored that, (like ONE Properties did across the street until they were forced to change the design) or if it somehow only applies to one side of the street, but it's weird.

Also a bit disappointed with the retail situation being worse than what's there now.
 
Last edited:
...and the 'March of the Towers' continues. I'm already grieving the gradual loss of this vibrant community as the seemingly unstoppable gentrification process moves forward,
 
I hope they scrape all that white paint off the heritage facades.

The tower setbacks are pretty small to the north and east, less than 6m.
 
Toronto1834 said:
I hope they scrape all that white paint off the heritage facades.

The tower setbacks are pretty small to the north and east, less than 6m.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they'll do a very competent restoration of the building's heritage exterior...it's the loss of 'texture', and the exorbitantly high rents that will likely result in driving away all but chain store retail and banks, that concerns me.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Thanks, I hate it.

Aside from the obvious shadowing issues on the park, doesn't this run into the problem of there being only a 4 story streetwall, with step backs beyond that, allowed along this section of Church? because as you can see in the renders, that clearly has been applied to the proposal on the West side of the street (which is why the original design for that project was scrapped). So Idk if they just ignored that, (like ONE Properties did across the street until they were forced to change the design) or if it somehow only applies to one side of the street, but it's weird.

Also a bit disappointed with the retail situation being worse than what's there now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this.

I'm pretty sure the developer on the west side went to the OMB and lost on the issue of setbacks from Church Street. The OMB only allowed the tower because it was deemed to be outside the Church corridor.

This proposal directly abuts the street. I don't see the City agreeing to it in any world.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top