[FormerTorontonianBackInTO]

the most upsetting part of this is them leaving the Green P lot atop the subway as-is.

I agree completely that it's frustrating to see the parking lot (and others like along the Danforth/Bloor subway line) remain, but I believe that's probably because they never expropriated that land to build the LRT and therefore they don't have grounds to expropriate and redevelop it like they do with the land that is part of this proposal.

 

[HousingNowTO]

Yes, Infrastructure Ontario has said in some of the earlier Ontario Line ToC meetings that they are "limited to the lands that Metrolinx agrees to surplus".

They say that they neither have the power nor the mandate at IO to make ToC sites larger / better by expropriating additional adjacent properties.

This may not be totally accurate about what is "within the power of the Province" - but those are the constraints that IO has been directed to work within.

 

[flonicky]

South demolition

North demolition

 

[TheTrekMachine]

Another amazing example of planners refusing to acknowledge anything but the existing context. 656 Danforth has already set a precedent. At an interchange of two grade-separated mass rapid transit lines they should be building for that context. There is no reason that the midrise portions on the east and west of the tower could not also support towers themselves. Similarly, there's absolutely no reason any new midrise should be going up directly on top of (or withing 300m of) a station that's going to see likely well over 10,000 riders per hour.

 

[Northern Light]

Another amazing example of planners refusing to acknowledge anything but the existing context.

Which planners are you speaking of here? The City has not had a say in this as yet, so this is entirely on the proponent and their private planning team.

656 Danforth has already set a precedent. At an interchange of two grade-separated mass rapid transit lines they should be building for that context.

You are incorrect here, because 656 has not been approved yet, so it is not a precedent at its proposed height, one which has been extensively discussed here, with the consensus that it will be reduced meaningfully when/if approved.

I say 'if' because that proposal faces other challenges around sidewalk setbacks, and wind mitigation as designed/massed that are material, and if entirely addressed may adversely effect the pro forma. In truth, that site should have been acquired by I.O. for the TOC which would have allowed better massing across the board.

There is no reason that the midrise portions on the east and west of the tower could not also support towers themselves. Similarly, there's absolutely no reason any new midrise should be going up directly on top of (or withing 300m of) a station that's going to see likely well over 10,000 riders per hour.

This too is incorrect. There is insufficient room when factoring for separation distances, and a tower over 656 to mass 3 towers on this site. It would never be proposed by anyone, ever, nor approved at OLT.

If the 656 site were part of this proposal there would be a way to put more units into the towers, and possibly squeeze a 3rd tower in, if you were creative w/building orientation.

 

[christiesplits]

South demolition

View attachment 546082

View attachment 546083

North demolition

View attachment 546084

View attachment 546085

View attachment 546086

View attachment 546087

Wow, that demo was fast.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Which planners are you speaking of here? The City has not had a say in this as yet, so this is entirely on the proponent and their private planning team.

Project is at the OLT now. It's out of the City's hands.

You are incorrect here, because 656 has not been approved yet, so it is not a precedent at its proposed height, one which has been extensively discussed here, with the consensus that it will be reduced meaningfully when/if approved.

Ehhhhhhhhhhh...

I say 'if' because that proposal faces other challenges around sidewalk setbacks, and wind mitigation as designed/massed that are material, and if entirely addressed may adversely effect the pro forma. In truth, that site should have been acquired by I.O. for the TOC which would have allowed better massing across the board.



This too is incorrect. There is insufficient room when factoring for separation distances, and a tower over 656 to mass 3 towers on this site. It would never be proposed by anyone, ever, nor approved at OLT.

If the 656 site were part of this proposal there would be a way to put more units into the towers, and possibly squeeze a 3rd tower in, if you were creative w/building orientation.

Nah, you can get 3 towers on this block and meet all Tall Building Guidelines setback and separation prescriptions (even though 656 has basically no east setback). Mine are 960sm too!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765396479588315406

 

[Northern Light]

Project is at the OLT now. It's out of the City's hands.

I know. I posted the Merit hearing date, here:

656 Danforth Avenue | 160.73m | 49s | Del Boca Vista | Studio JCI

I believe all of Lipton up to Eaton, including the house on Eaton (the detached one at the corner of the parking lot), have gone to Metrolinx. Interesting; thanks! Very very secretive. Have they even given a tentative start date for work at Pape, Cosburn? I don't believe so, and I...

urbantoronto.ca

Ehhhhhhhhhhh...

Nah, you can get 3 towers on this block and meet all Tall Building Guidelines setback and separation prescriptions (even though 656 has basically no east setback). Mine are 960sm too!

https://twitter.com/x/status/1765396479588315406

I think first, we need to clarify, my understanding of the post to which I was replying was the desire to see three towers on the TOC site, or 4 total, inclusive of 656. That's what I said could not be done. I did in fact suggest it was possible to put a second tower on the site, here:

If the 656 site were part of this proposal there would be a way to put more units into the towers, and possibly squeeze a 3rd tower in, if you were creative w/building orientation.

As per the bolded above, I agree w/your choice to orient the towers on a N-S axis which is the only way to make that work.

****

That said, I do see some potential issues w/your scheme.

1) You've chosen to omit the transit plaza here; which, in the absence of widening the sidewalk for the entire length of the Danforth block is necessary for pedestrian volumes. (albeit it not as deep as what Mx proposes)

2) If you go w/the sidewalk widening option, I estimate an extra 2M along the whole length of the block and your towers would get a depth trim accordingly, (but still be viable)

3) You appear to have accepted the current siting of 656. I don't believe this will happen, The sidewalk on Pape must be wider by at least 2M, they also propose a near sheer wall on the Pape side, I don't see that happening either. Maybe that gets approved; it shouldn't.

3) By leaving 656 apart, you've had to shift your east tower to the extreme edge of the site, w/very little setback; given the wind issues involved and the transition to drastically lower heights to the east, I don't see that getting approved.

4) Irrespective of the merits, I don't see 55 floors happening here.

***
5) I agree with larger podium floor plates, though I would prioritize a supermarket over moving the library or recreation centre.

The current library is undersized, but also in a heritage building, which may complicate closing it.

You're not building a new Recreation Centre there w/o closing nearby Frankland. That too is an under-sized facility and it would not be a great loss, however, a functional program for a full-serve recreation centre here would be a challenge. You can't have columns through the middle of your 8-lane pool or within 3M of the edge of same. That's also a 125M project you just created for the rec. ctr alone, and another 50M for the library at least.

I'd be interested to know whose paying, as neither of those are in the 10-year capital plan.

****

I agree your premise, I would just integrate the 656 site to get 3 properly spaced towers, with proper setbacks and sidewalk widths.


****

PE's idea:

Above: Looking north-east, with 656 in black and PE's proposal in pale yellow.

 

[ProjectEnd]

To be clear, I spent 10 minutes drawing some boxes in SketchUp after sizing the site and reading the sizable outrage from yesterday. It's probably infeasible as currently outlined, but hey, if all were doing is seeing what fits, why not dream?

Regarding how IO is treating all of these ToC sites, nobody is interested in them. The assumed future-value expectation, as well as the impossibility of doing any hard work until the OL is basically complete, makes it a nonstarter for almost everyone.

 

[Northern Light]

To be clear, I spent 10 minutes drawing some boxes in SketchUp after sizing the site and reading the sizable outrage from yesterday. It's probably infeasible as currently outlined, but hey, if all were doing is seeing what fits, why not dream?

Totally fair.

Regarding how IO is treating all of these ToC sites, nobody is interested in them. The assumed future-value expectation, as well as the impossibility of doing any hard work until the OL is basically complete, makes it a nonstarter for almost everyone.

No surprise there; and as you note, it would be a challenge even if the massing/site plans were perfect across the board (which they most certainly are not); but the multi-year delay in getting started, which may be unavoidable, also makes the properties unmarketable for at least a few years.

You would need an institutional investor (or government), someone with deep pockets and very long time horizon to even give it a second look this far out.

***

We both agree the plan here is sub-optimal; and under achieves. A problem w/many of the sites they've proposed; some are better than others (see Cosburn) but still need work.

 

[Ward14-Danforth]

Regarding how IO is treating all of these ToC sites, nobody is interested in them. The assumed future-value expectation, as well as the impossibility of doing any hard work until the OL is basically complete, makes it a nonstarter for almost everyone.

I would also imagine when the province tenders the TOCs to the development community I would think no developer would want to build over the station itself and would probably request the floor area proposed over the station be placed on top of the tower to make it taller. There is no justifciation for proposing only 29 storeys here. The PJR report doesnt even speak to why they settled on 29 or why.

I say 'if' because that proposal faces other challenges around sidewalk setbacks, and wind mitigation as designed/massed that are material, and if entirely addressed may adversely effect the pro forma. In truth, that site should have been acquired by I.O. for the TOC which would have allowed better massing across the board.

Re wind study, the adjacent applications wind study is now moot becuase the context completely changes. A downdraught from a 49 storey adjacent to 2 storey storefronts would be much greater than one that is adjacent to a midrise and a tower.

 

[Northern Light]

I would also imagine when the province tenders the TOCs to the development community I would think no developer would want to build over the station itself and would probably request the floor area proposed over the station be placed on top of the tower to make it taller.

I don't see this as particularly likely.

There is no justifciation for proposing only 29 storeys here. The PJR report doesnt even speak to why they settled on 29 or why.

It wouldn't, but I can take an educated guess. Its a step down from the height they think 656 will be approved at.

Re wind study, the adjacent applications wind study is now moot becuase the context completely changes. A downdraught from a 49 storey adjacent to 2 storey storefronts would be much greater than one that is adjacent to a midrise and a tower.

The Wind study is not moot. Prevailing winds are from the west, in Toronto, and there are no new buildings proposed to the west of 656. The issue is the way the wind impacts with a sheer wall and drives down to the ground. Greater height equals greater velocity of wind at ground level absent mitigation. There are different options for mitigation, but setbacks are the most common choice.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Totally fair.



No surprise there; and as you note, it would be a challenge even if the massing/site plans were perfect across the board (which they most certainly are not); but the multi-year delay in getting started, which may be unavoidable, also makes the properties unmarketable for at least a few years.

You would need an institutional investor (or government), someone with deep pockets and very long time horizon to even give it a second look this far out.

***

We both agree the plan here is sub-optimal; and under achieves. A problem w/many of the sites they've proposed; some are better than others (see Cosburn) but still need work.

...to note, I suspect all of PE-san's towers there include adequate elevator services and accessories.

 

[TossYourJacket]

...to note, I suspect all of PE-san's towers there include adequate elevator services and accessories.

But unfortunately, anything a developer proposes that would be that tall almost certainly wouldn't

 

[HousingNowTO]

Which planners are you speaking of here? The City has not had a say in this as yet, so this is entirely on the proponent and their private planning team.

The City has long multi-month pre-meetings with Infrastructure Ontario, SvN, etc -- before these public documents are ever released.

City Planning has been in-the-loop for a long-time.