N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
32,339
Reaction score
91,114
From the Lobbyist Registry, we learn that these adjacent properties are in play.

These are just down from the Heron's Hill sites, a bit south of Sheppard Avenue, next to the 404.

Aerial Pic:

1637341723056.png


Streetview: Includes both buildings, 235 is the tall on the left, 245 shorter on the right.

1637341811037.png


Site Size: 2.4ha/6ac

Details for Subject Matter Registration: SM32578​


Decision(s) or issue(s) to be lobbied

235-245 Yorkland Boulevard

Client: Northam Realty Advisors Ltd.
 
Yuck. Among the general concerns about the ridiculous position it puts the existing office building (which is dated but actually handsome IMO) in, it turns its back on the (north & south) edges of the site. If we anticipate future development taking place on other properties in the Employment Areas, we should be thinking about the connectivity and the feeling of these large properties at their boundaries, which becomes their meeting point - not filling the space in with trees and effectively treating it as the back of the infill and calling it a day. This is an extremely suburban site plan that stuffs itself with density but ignores any notional idea of what the properties beside it will eventually do - at grade and in terms of density (tower) placement.

I did my architecture thesis on this site and speculating on how to knit the different Employment Areas together into a sort of 2020's suburban version of the "Two Kings", so I've been waiting impatiently to see this proposal. Colour me unsurprised but also disappointed. 😅

Just looking back at my thesis, surely enough this was a site I identified as an ideal location to introduce two new woonerf-type streets along both the north and south property lines to create a finer grain for the type of spaces residents and creative businesses would thrive in. I'm clearly very biased but I'm not keen on the idea of a private driveway in the middle of the site and leaving the edges as afterthought. The 235-245 Yorkland Blvd. site is the middle of the bottom left:

Screen Shot 2022-02-11 at 6.17.23 PM.png
 
Last edited:
.dwg said:
Documents are up.

Spoiler alert: It's just a massing / conceptual site plan but it sucks.
Click to expand...

Oh, you weren't kidding, LOL

Height, 4 x 45s

'Architect' (masser?) IBI


1644620198951.png



1644620224627.png


From the Cover Letter:

1644620326770.png


Notwithstanding that I don't think this gets approved in anything like its current form, I certainly hope not..............

@HousingNowTO will wish to track the affordable housing commitment noted above.

IF they got what they were asking, that's 5% of 2,140 units, so 107 units

Ha!

They're reaching for an MTSA designation.....

See this line:

1644620508227.png


From the Planning Rationale Report:

1644620686191.png

1644620744710.png

1644620969604.png
 
Last edited:
It's the same problem as 60s tower in the park sites. Because the main building is located so smack dab in the middle of the site, it's hard to densify without tearing down the existing structure.

Northern Light said:
Ha!

They're reaching for an MTSA designation.....
Click to expand...

Line 4 Vic Park extension when? ;)
 
@Northern Light - thanks for the Heads-Up on the "5% Affordable Units" comment. Will be interesting to see how many years of Affordable those last for, and if they are looking to do Affordable-Rental or Affordable-Ownership..?

Site is in Ward 17 - and Councillor Carroll is usually pretty "on-the-ball" with these kinds of deals.
 
Omg this is so bad it's almost funny. The residential towers look like they're ganging up to bully the office building. They'd have been better doing an offsite park dedication than doing what they've done here and awkwardly cram all the towers around the office building to include the required parkland.
 
Undead said:
It's the same problem as 60s tower in the park sites. Because the main building is located so smack dab in the middle of the site, it's hard to densify without tearing down the existing structure.



Line 4 Vic Park extension when? ;)
Click to expand...
Seriously, the more density we cram into the Consumers Road area, the more we need that extension. The busses along Sheppard barely have any additional capacity in this area.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Omg this is so bad it's almost funny. The residential towers look like they're ganging up to bully the office building. They'd have been better doing an offsite park dedication than doing what they've done here and awkwardly cram all the towers around the office building to include the required parkland.
Click to expand...

It's certainly laughably bad; on that there can be no disagreement.

But I'd be more inclined this way:

Consolidate the office towers on site to a new single building with serious height, and great, un-abashed, office architecture....site it next to the road, and as contiguous to the rest of the offices as possible.
Site the residential in behind. Play w/the floor plates here..........while I've spoken about the City trying to adhere to guidelines, everything about this site screams not in line w/precedent......so screw it.....
This is the time to get more livable conditions and play a bit, there's room.

I'd probably cut the number of residential towers to 3, just because of how I'd spatially arrange things.
But that needed mean a cut in unit count.

This is again one of those exceptional sites that doesn't scream for retail or granularity.
You can be a bit suburban here. Just be a good version of it.

Do not make all the towers the same bloody height. Booooring.

Again not an issue w/total density...but play a bit.....

This demonstrates that IBI, despite the odd success is the worst firm in this city outside of KirKor.
Even T-F and G+C wouldn't........ok, ok...... I'm going too far..........but you get the idea... LOL
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top