UtakataNoAnnex said:
...so what does it take to get their fingers out and put one there? It doesn't have to be fancy or elaborate...just nice, easy and practical.
Click to expand...

Money would be helpful. You also need landing points on both sides.

Towered said:
Make it a requirement to gain approval.
Click to expand...

Not feasible. You can ask, but not mandate that.

guavadelic said:
Moving is never easy but why do they seem against swapping out a nearly 60 year-old building for a brand new one involving just a slight relocation?
Click to expand...

I don't know if @ADRM could add anything here.

*****

In respect of adding a bridge (or tunnel).

It's not a cheap endeavour.

The simplest version requires a ramp, ideally at a 5% or less gradiant so as to be considered accessible (you can do stairs or a steeper ramp, but you then need an elevator to achieve accessibility).

A 5% grade, when you need to clear the rail corridor at a height that allows for GO Trains, and then overhead catenary on top of that you need a fair bit of distance.

For clarity, Mx requires you clear their tracks by at least 5.3M, and at a 5% grade, a ramp would be ~100M long to reach that height. Even with one switchback, that's still 50M'ish...

That's a lot of real estate.

The alternative, add elevators, is costly you need one on each side, they have to be weatherproofed etc.

That's not to suggest it isn't do-able, it is. But its a substantial ask and would be hard to justify given the current project size/layout. Easier if the school site were included.
 
Towered said:
Also, are there any mechanisms in place that the city could use to pressure the TDCSB to play ball here?
Click to expand...

Not really.

The City has joint use agreements for some school yards/community facilities and it could choose to terminate those contracts when they come up for renewal, but that would just see the community lose access to those spaces through the City.

There really isn't any other obvious leverage.
 
Northern Light said:
Not really.

The City has joint use agreements for some school yards/community facilities and it could choose to terminate those contracts when they come up for renewal, but that would just see the community lose access to those spaces through the City.

There really isn't any other obvious leverage.
Click to expand...
That's unfortunate. Perhaps this is something that needs to be looked at and a mechanism created to give the city more leverage in situations like this when dealing with entities that needlessly create obstacles despite offers of accommodation on the table.
 
Northern Light said:
Money would be helpful. You also need landing points on both sides.



Not feasible. You can ask, but not mandate that.



I don't know if @ADRM could add anything here.

*****

In respect of adding a bridge (or tunnel).

Its not a cheap endeavour.

The simplest version requires a ramp, ideally at a 5% or less gradiant so as to be considered accessible (you can do stairs or a steeper ramp, but you then need an elevator to achieve accessibility).

A 5% grade, when you need to clear the rail corridor at a height that allows for GO Trains, and then overhead catenary on top of that you need a fair bit of distance.

For clarity, Mx requires you clear their tracks by at least 5.3M, and at a 5% grade, a ramp would be ~100M long to reach that height. Even with one switchback, that's still 50M'ish...

That's a lot of real estate.

The alternative, add elevators, is costly you need one on each side, they have to be weatherproofed etc.

That's not to suggest it isn't do-able, it is. But its a substantial ask and would be hard to justify given the current project size/layout. Easier if the school site were included.
Click to expand...
With a project that millions will potentially been thrown at surely they can take the time to work out those logistics. Like I said, it doesn't have to be fancy or signature....

...and stacking the ramp industriously like I've seen done with other P bridges across town resolves real estate issues mostly.
 
As far as a crossing goes would a ramp utilizing switchbacks but still having a 5° slope use much less real estate?
 
rdaner said:
As far as a crossing goes would a ramp utilizing switchbacks but still having a 5° slope use much less real estate?
Click to expand...
....oppose to snaking them along all the way to Cleveland. >.<
 
I'm not smart enough to know if the construction activity on-site this week is at all related to this project, but last night crews had set up for some drilling (I think) of some sort in the parking lot just East of the Pizza Nova.

IMG_6108.jpg
 
txlseries4 said:
On the post it mentions:

Golden Mile (1880 Eglinton Ave E) - July 3 to 6
The Annex (650 Dupont St) - July 10 to 13
Roncesvalles (2280 Dundas St W) - July 17 to 20
Fort York (500 Lake Shore Blvd W) - July 24 to 27
Click to expand...

The first three of these have meaningful surface parking.........where is the Fort York store going to do this?
 
1Ć0 said:
Wowee, $46m spent to date at Dundas-Bloor by Choice (on land acquisition, initial dev, and planning costs). A hefty number for Grosvenor as well ($36m).

And good to see some initial planning for Lower Jarvis (at Queens Quay) - $3.5m spent to date

From their Q3 report - https://www.choicereit.ca/wp-conten...ice-Properties-Quarterly-Report-FINAL-NEW.pdf

View attachment 610523
Click to expand...

We can see a nice comparison here after about a year. $48m spent on Dundas West site to date

From annual report - https://www.choicereit.ca/wp-conten..._content=a57a555a-4e02-4718-a223-bdde702e7d57

1771607827123.png
 
This proposal is on ice indefinitely.

Unless they intend to break apart for a stand-alone phase 1.

We know this because:

Loblaws has now publicly confirmed they are flipping the banner of their grocery store here to No Frills.

The existing store will close in early May, and reopen in late summer or early fall.

That's indicative for a large seven figure renovation.

The low end for a store this size, even for basic finishes is ~ 7M

I presume they aren't doing that to to then proceed with a tear down.
 
Northern Light said:
This proposal is on ice indefinitely.

Unless they intend to break apart for a stand-alone phase 1.

We know this because:

Loblaws has now publicly confirmed they are flipping the banner of their grocery store here to No Frills.

The existing store will close in early May, and reopen in late summer or early fall.

That's indicative for a large seven figure renovation.

The low end for a store this size, even for basic finishes is ~ 7M

I presume they aren't doing that to to then proceed with a tear down.
Click to expand...
Maybe that’s for the best given the mediocre watered down plan…
 
Ratazana said:
Maybe that’s for the best given the mediocre watered down plan…
Click to expand...

See modifications to my post.......

It turns out......

****

This was resubmitted in September '25.

You'd think @Paclo would have said something....but Noooo

1773863567397.png

1773863592471.png

1773863626437.png

1773863647726.png

@HousingNowTO will wish to make note of the above.

****

No new docs in the SPA files, so we are still a bit off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top