Soooo.....

A report on this one is coming to next week's Council meeting....


This one is a bit different........it's still a report on the latest in-play plans ahead of an OLT hearing.....

The recommendations are still confidential.

But reading the report, I don't think you can expect a settlement to be approved next week.

There's enough that's public..............

@ProjectEnd and @innsertnamehere among others will likely take a keen interest in staff's tone towards the latest materials. Its not so much the substance....well...
Read on..

1679676718102.png


I do believe staff just called the submission 'unprofessional' in somewhat more diplomatic language.

***

Also, get a load of the chutzpah on the unit totals change and cutting non-residential gross floor area too!
 
Lots going on here behind the scenes. New architect, totally new site plan. While I'm not privy to the shortcomings of plans themselves, it's a bit too simplistic to take the City's comments here completely at face value.

Let's wait for things to be made public, and judge at that point.
 
Statistics for the proposal as amended, with comparison to previous iteration:

1696077363240.png


Same renders @PMT posted above, but enlarged:

1696077455637.png


1696077490781.png


1696077614195.png


1696077673783.png


Comments: Too much surface space devoted to cars! Can't say I particularly care for the pops arrangement. Would prefer to see a new E-W street through the site (public), any pops south of that, in area, should be added to the park as unencumbered space; but I'd push the southern buildings to relate to the new street, get a more functional layout for the park space.

Too much parking, we're over 0.5; needs to come down below 0.35.
 
Can't tell if you are trying to be sarcastic on this one lol - having a street bisect the site would create much more space devoted to cars! I think the large POPS space is a big improvement from the previous application by removing the road and creating more of a pedestrian-focused central space.
Northern Light said:
Statistics for the proposal as amended, with comparison to previous iteration:

View attachment 510122

Same renders @PMT posted above, but enlarged:

View attachment 510123

View attachment 510124

View attachment 510125

View attachment 510126

Comments: Too much surface space devoted to cars! Can't say I particularly care for the pops arrangement. Would prefer to see a new E-W street through the site (public), any pops south of that, in area, should be added to the park as unencumbered space; but I'd push the southern buildings to relate to the new street, get a more functional layout for the park space.

Too much parking, we're over 0.5; needs to come down below 0.35.
Click to expand...
 
bkden said:
Can't tell if you are trying to be sarcastic on this one lol
Click to expand...

I was not being.

bkden said:
- having a street bisect the site would create much more space devoted to cars!
Click to expand...

A street does not have to be open to cars, though I envisioned it probably would be; but as a narrow side streets with significant pedestrian space.

The key for me is dividing the private property, controlled by condo corps etc. with a public ROW allowing everyone to cross the site at will, and making it straight forward to do so.

bkden said:
I think the large POPS space is a big improvement from the previous application by removing the road and creating more of a pedestrian-focused central space.
Click to expand...

I don't see the space as being successful because of how its laid out and how the buildings are massed; though should this be approved in its current form, I would hope to be wrong.

If you look at the site plan, you'll see that access to the PoPs from the east or west is across massive car-oriented cul de sacs. I don't see people accessing the public space in significant numbers across those.

The park to the south is a better access, but the access from Eglinton in the north seems poorly conceived to me.

Between issues of shadowing, wind, lack of successful retail, and poor visibility/access from 3 out of 4 sides....... I just don't imagine this is turning out like the renders.
 
New renderings are updated in the database. The storey count changed from 48, 42, 41, 33 & 10 storey to 52, 48, 46, 42, 41 & 12-storey. The total unit count increased from 1850 units to 2709 units. The total parking space count increased from 1142 parking to 1392 parking. Finally, the total bike parking increased from 1424 bike parking to 2278 bike parking.

Rendering taken from the architectural plan via rezoning.

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
 
innsertnamehere said:
nothing like a good ol' 850 increase in units.
Click to expand...
I'm not as miffed by it here (having not gone through the plans in any detail). What kills me is when someone has a huge increase in units within a prescribed zoning envelope with no associated height increase (and no added elevators)...
 
ProjectEnd said:
They added floors to all of them and an entirely new 40+ storey building, if my read of @Art Tsai's post above is correct.
Click to expand...

You are correct that there is an additional building, there are now six buildings in the site plan, there were 5.
 
No wonder there is a housing shortage, look at the date on the first page of this thread and look at so many other threads and see the same thing.

Toronto and its developers... Experts in the delivery of development study. More housing delivered on paper than any other place in Canada. If we could convert our people out of reality and into study things would be perfect.
 
EnviroTO said:
No wonder there is a housing shortage, look at the date on the first page of this thread and look at so many other threads and see the same thing.

Toronto and its developers... Experts in the delivery of development study. More housing delivered on paper than any other place in Canada. If we could convert our people out of reality and into study things would be perfect.
Click to expand...
Sure, there's tons of blame to assign to a lethargic bureaucracy like Planning (and some folks on here much closer to this project than I could expand on that to great lengths), but at the end of the day, the project has to make money for anyone to move on it. The original owner here was a zone and flip, so Mattamy was / is the only group who has had any intent to construct what they propose.

There's a ton of important minutiae to any application and behind the scenes there's always someone more to blame, but to make declarative "this is why there's a housing shortage" posts is unhelpful and doesn't get at the root of the problem (an entirely market-driven, for-profit, housing sector with little to no relief from governments at all three levels).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top