172 Harbord ( 2 storey addition )

androiduk · Jul 20, 2013

Application: Zoning Review Status: Not Started

Location: 172 HARBORD ST
TORONTO ON M5S 1H4

Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 13 207085 ZPR 00 ZR Accepted Date: Jul 19, 2013

Project: Non-Residential Building Addition

Description: Proposal to construct a complete new 2nd and 3rd floor storey to an existing 1 storey commercial building. Proposed use - basement, storage; ground floor, coin laundry; 2nd and 3rd floor , 8 residential units

Edward Skira · Jul 20, 2013

Why even bother? 6 storeys would work better.

wolfewood · Jul 20, 2013

Shit, that's my laundromat. I hope they don't plan to close for this addition, I don't want to carry my laundry any further than I already do.

ponyboy · Jul 20, 2013

are they applying for this as an addition because of the easier red tape vs proposing a new building? I know this street is mostly 2 and 3 story, but would they have trouble getting 4 or 5 stories here? I guess that would require more money (and an elevator?). A building on the north side of Harbord a little closer to Spadina (next to splindito) has recently added a third story. This area is so highly desired, you would think more efforts at intensification would underway.

ducati0000 · Jul 20, 2013

Hope they make it look half decent,so many of these small build looks awful...

wolfewood · May 26, 2016

This one has started. I'm glad I moved before that, I could barely stand to carry my laundry this far...

greenleaf · Apr 8, 2020

Going up:

Description:
Proposal for additions to an Existing 1-Storey Commercial Building; 2nd & 3rd Storey Additions to add One Residential Unit (SFD). Altered building will be a Mixed-Use Building, with commercial on the Ground floor and only One-Residential Unit at 2nd & 3rd floors combined. (16 191698 ZZC & CofA#1092/17TEY).

whatever · Apr 8, 2020

All of that to add a single-family dwelling? Really? For what the land + construction has to cost, I'm amazed that someone with that kind of money wouldn't rather spend it on one of the side streets nearby to restore one of those nice old houses into a little sanctuary that isn't plunked on top of a laundromat.

The original application was for 8 residential units, and even if it was 3 or 4 rental apartments up there I'd get it, but for a SFD I'm kinda scratching my head. Maybe for a multi-generational family?

ADRM · Apr 8, 2020

whatever said:
All of that to add a single-family dwelling? Really? For what the land + construction has to cost, I'm amazed that someone with that kind of money wouldn't rather spend it on one of the side streets nearby to restore one of those nice old houses into a little sanctuary that isn't plunked on top of a laundromat.

The original application was for 8 residential units, and even if it was 3 or 4 rental apartments up there I'd get it, but for a SFD I'm kinda scratching my head. Maybe for a multi-generational family?

My guess is the proponent is also the owner of the existing business; you can certainly make the numbers work if you don't have to pay for the land; it'd be a bit like doing a laneway house.

But, yes, larger picture, it certainly should be much easier to gently densify a site like this for more than one unit.

jje1000 · Apr 10, 2020

ADRM said:
My guess is the proponent is also the owner of the existing business; you can certainly make the numbers work if you don't have to pay for the land; it'd be a bit like doing a laneway house.

But, yes, larger picture, it certainly should be much easier to gently densify a site like this for more than one unit.

All the permits, code, and zoning applications for small multi-unit developments certainly don't help- Toronto should be moving towards a right-to-build model for certain key areas of the city (like avenues and laneway housing).

The move away from this gentle densification (usually by small-scale lot owners) towards large-scale corporate-led development (inadvertently created by over-regulation) in the last 60 years has been one of the main flaws in modern planning- in its rigidity against rapidly responding to changes in housing demand, and in failing to create self-determined neighbourhoods that can evolve independently of the management corporation.