N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
35,224
Reaction score
102,368
This new to AIC application seeks to redevelop an existing 10-storey, 56 unit purpose built rental on Dundas, just east of Cordova.

Site as is, per Streetview:

1715341719068.png


The App:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Renders and other docs:

1715341909103.png


1715341956777.png


Site Plan:

1715342020422.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1715342123789.png




Project Stats:

1715342191267.png



Parking Ratio: 214 residential spaces to 488 units: 0.45

Elevator Ratio: 4 elevators to 488 units, one elevator per 122 units.

Comments:

The height is being justified here by the PMTSA designation. But nothing else nearby is anywhere near as tall with the site across the street just having settled at 29s. I do not see 45s flying w/o extraordinary benefits.

Speaking of the PMTSA designation, that parking ratio is very high for a development predicated on being walking distance to the subway. (distance is ~600M btw)

They would also like an above-guideline 800m2 floor plate. That might be an otherwise reasonable ask, but in the context of asking for vastly more height than recent precedents, I don't see them getting near the proposed height AND and over-sized floorplate.

@Paclo is flagged

@HousingNowTO is flagged for high-density residential proposal, PMTSA, extraordinary ask that could only be remotely justified by an above Community Benefit contribution to affordable housing.
 
Last edited:
Towered said:
Yes!! This is what I've dreamed of for Islington Village for ages!!
Click to expand...

You dreamt of a G+C building?

Fascinating.

Edit: Since I'm here, I will say the podium isn't all that bad; the landscaping is incorrectly positioned right up against the building, based on the render, this position means there would only be a single retail entrance, for a ~5,000ft2 unit. That pretty much makes it a chain drug store.

Too large for the vast majority of retail businesses.

The retail is aligned shallow and parallel to the street which means window film in the majority of cases.

***

The tower only has the one render from a distance, I will withhold judgement.
 
IMG_6208.jpeg
Also adding this site to our “towers over +750 m2 floorplate” list.
 
I like it. This area needs this kind of intensification, it's such a nicely kept area, walkable, nice streetscape with art and nice lights in the winter. Hope the retail is a restaurant. People living here would likely walk west to Cordova and down the steps by the Tridel buildings to Islington to get to the subway, that stretch needs to be inviting and have some ground level retail. Not sure what is planned in the podium of Westerly, but there's a chance to make this a nice walkable area. The walk along Islington to the TTC would not be a nice one. I think the more of these newer units that are build in this neighbourhood, the more 'middle class' it becomes. There is a stigma with this area (mostly with Mabelle), that I think has started to go away with the Tridel towers, but that mix of SES in the neighbourhood is good.
 
toaster29 said:
I like it. This area needs this kind of intensification, it's such a nicely kept area, walkable, nice streetscape with art and nice lights in the winter. Hope the retail is a restaurant. People living here would likely walk west to Cordova and down the steps by the Tridel buildings to Islington to get to the subway, that stretch needs to be inviting and have some ground level retail. Not sure what is planned in the podium of Westerly, but there's a chance to make this a nice walkable area. The walk along Islington to the TTC would not be a nice one. I think the more of these newer units that are build in this neighbourhood, the more 'middle class' it becomes. There is a stigma with this area (mostly with Mabelle), that I think has started to go away with the Tridel towers, but that mix of SES in the neighbourhood is good.
Click to expand...
I agree, very good bones of the old village remain but Dundas Street itself holds the area back a great deal. Very loud and fast it deadens the otherwise nice retail strip. Considering the amount of off street parking being constructed a removal of parking lanes on Dundas for cycle tracks and a more extensive tree boulevard would do wonders for the strip. Islington is quite a hostile end to the village, but with some traffic calming and slip lane removal it could be...ok.
 
I disagree with this proposal. I am aware that attempts at demolishing this building were made in the past and have been rejected to maintain a certain affordability in the area. The proposal talks about 'affordable housing' which in today's market will not be the case. I am not a fan of kicking out existing residents for the sake of development profit.

Also, this area has a lot of empty lots already and more lots around Kipling. If new buildings need to be constructed, it would make more sense to construct in areas that have no development than areas that already have existing development and people living there that will be affected by this change.

As a resident of this building, I am against this change especially when I have seen multiple attempts at getting rid of this building and its inhabitants to make a profit off this short term flip. Ownership of the building has changed multiple times and it seems everyone is constantly trying to make a profit over the livelihood of those that live here. Please reject this proposal on behalf of the residents that live here and with the logic provided above.
 
I agree there are underused sites that should go before buildings like this. But they can redevelop only what they own. And they're required by law to provide relocation assistance and rental replacement units for existing tenants. Granted, it's a royal pain in the ass for current tenants.
 
Buildingcomments said:
As a resident of this building, I am against this change especially when I have seen multiple attempts at getting rid of this building and its inhabitants to make a profit off this short term flip. Ownership of the building has changed multiple times and it seems everyone is constantly trying to make a profit over the livelihood of those that live here. Please reject this proposal on behalf of the residents that live here and with the logic provided above.
Click to expand...

I can completely understand your position as a resident.

That said, a couple of things.

1) Imploring other forum users to reject this is largely pitching to the wrong audience, while there are planners on this forum; it will be the planner on this application, along w/the area councillor who will take a first crack at this, and those are the people you need to approach.

2) The planner, but Council as well have to be mindful of planning law in Ontario and the potential appeal of any decision here to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In general the law here favours permitting some sort of redevelopment here subject to a variety of planning rules, as well as those noted by @Undead above.

****

Now, that does not mean this application will be approved as-is; nor that any redevelopment will take place, even if permission is granted. An 'entitlement' or planning permission to do something does not mean a developer will automatically proceed.

****

It would be my suggestion that you read the comments of forumer's here on where this proposal may run afoul of planning rules and formulate arguments around those and forward them to the Planner and Councillor. Should your argument prove compelling, its unlikely to spike the application outright, but may see it altered in such a way through the approval process as to make it less likely to go ahead, at least in the near term.

My other suggestion would be to have a fall-back position, to secure the best possible benefit for existing tenants should you end up facing relocation. Its sometimes possible to negotiate enhanced moving costs and rent-gap payments as part of the approval process.

Ultimately, its important for tenants to be ready, should they need to move; whether or not that's 'fair'. But in the meantime you can certainly make a case about the appropriateness of this proposal (or lack thereof) as it is to staff and Council.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if the area near Royal York will get anything near 45 storeys or if the rich folk have their complaints heard...
Highest is a 17 storey but everything else is 7 storey that's being proposed over by Royal York but here's an attempt to evict a rent controlled purpose built rental
and 45 storeys? terrible...
 
Tonian said:
I wonder if the area near Royal York will get anything near 45 storeys or if the rich folk have their complaints heard...
Highest is a 17 storey but everything else is 7 storey that's being proposed over by Royal York but here's an attempt to evict a rent controlled purpose built rental
and 45 storeys? terrible...
Click to expand...
Good points. On top of all of this, the general sentiment of us tenants is that we are not even taken into consideration in the decision or any conversations that are being had. They mentioned at the October 6 community meeting that tenants will have their own date to ask questions, but that date has never been set and by the time it will be set it will be too late. Furthermore tenant questions are imperative to raising questions in the community meeting as we know about this area better than anyone. Myself being one living here for 20+ years with an example of their traffic redirection proposal being terrible and clearly they don't know how traffic in this area works (as one easy example). We were never even communicated about this proposal until seeing it online via Google searches, and only after the mandatory communication is needed it was sent. But no one from the development side bothers to engage in conversations with the tenants or provide any insight on what will happen to the tenants. There are no thoughts given about the tenants as a general sentiment.
 
Buildingcomments said:
Good points. On top of all of this, the general sentiment of us tenants is that we are not even taken into consideration in the decision or any conversations that are being had. They mentioned at the October 6 community meeting that tenants will have their own date to ask questions, but that date has never been set and by the time it will be set it will be too late. Furthermore tenant questions are imperative to raising questions in the community meeting as we know about this area better than anyone. Myself being one living here for 20+ years with an example of their traffic redirection proposal being terrible and clearly they don't know how traffic in this area works (as one easy example). We were never even communicated about this proposal until seeing it online via Google searches, and only after the mandatory communication is needed it was sent. But no one from the development side bothers to engage in conversations with the tenants or provide any insight on what will happen to the tenants. There are no thoughts given about the tenants as a general sentiment.
Click to expand...
Won’t the tenants find another unit to rent as they don’t own their apartments? That is part of renting.
 
As someone that lives in this building for 20+ years and is familiar with the local traffic, I question the approach on redirecting traffic through the back of the building to Cordova (with 210 additional underground parking spaces + all additional new traffic from the other developments in the area).

Here's why:
Let's say you want to make a left on Dundas St W during rush hour. To do this, you would need to exit out the back to Cordova making a right, and crossing two lanes of traffic to make a left at the intersection (that gets backed up for left turns from much farther back during rush hour), all in a distance of one restaurant chain called Thai Jalearn. The other option you have is crossing those same two lanes of traffic and making a left on Cordova, then making a right on Mabelle Ave that curves around via single lane through the area with newly added condos to eventually make a left on Dundas St W. Before you can even get to Mabelle, Cordova already has a lot of congestion and incoming traffic from Burnhamthorpe road that consists of a lot of people trying to follow the Cordova Ave loop that curves left and connects to Islington Ave and gets backed up, while the right lane is less busy at this point of the road (primarily allows to turn into the junior school on the right or keep going straight). So the latter option involve crossing two lanes of Cordova traffic going right, and one lane of backed up traffic going left.

The current front access is not an issue for this. During rush hour, the traffic moving right on Dundas St W allows you to make a left in between the cars that give you space during the red light of Islington and Dundas, which also prevents oncoming traffic from that intersection coming through, making a left very functional and I never had issues with it (or worst case make a left at Burnhamthorpe Cres and U-turn back out from there).

I understand the reason to make the exit come out from the back from a building design perspective, but I do see this path being very impractical for the above scenario of needing to make a left on Dundas St W during rush hour.

With the allowed 6 meter diameter for the entry way to the parking area (1 lane in and 1 lane out), if you encounter someone needing to make a left on Dundas St W, their wait time to exit and difficulty on achieving this will affect everyone else trying to get out. Between the added 210 parking spaces (and additional 56 existing spaces of 4875 Dundas building relocated to the back) and the existing users of the parking from the adjacent buildings, it will be a cumbersome issue.

I don't think any of this is being taken into account. It all looks nice on paper, but when you actually think about what is involved here, this is not a good solution.

I will also add, that part of your reasoning to establish 270 parking spaces for a 45 storey building consisting of 488 units is that your research revealed that around half of the users in the area commute via bike/public transport, while the other half commute via personal vehicle. So this also means that one may anticipate that there will be this many vehicles trying to get out for work. Even if that number is generously half at 135 vehicles during peak rush hour, that's a lot of traffic coming out from one place, via one exit lane, and that's just trying to get out of that parking area.
 
Last edited:
rdaner said:
Won’t the tenants find another unit to rent as they don’t own their apartments? That is part of renting.
Click to expand...
Yes and there are certain bylaws in Toronto and rights that come with rent controlled units and protections for tenants underneath those units such as right to return. It's not as much about that at this point (albeit an extremely important item), it's more about having those conversations and allowing a public forum for those conversations that would also drive bigger conversations and questions around this project as a whole.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top