Northern Light

Member Bio
May 20, 2007
Reaction score
New Application into the AIC for 2 18-storey towers at the addresses listed above.

*note, based on my survey of the location and reading the description I believe this also includes 6, and 8, and may include 12 Oakburn Crescent as well, but I've titled as per the AIC.

App here:


Site as it is today:

Aerial: (shows 2-12 Oakburn)

I sleep soundly knowing that rough men stand ready to do violence on my behalf Northern Light is perusing AIC at 6 in the morning ;)

Sadly, I don't! (sleep soundly) or I wouldn't be perusing AIC at 6 in the morning!

But if I can't sleep, I might as well do something other than stare at the ceiling.......

Besides I had the NYT crossword done already.
*note, based on my survey of the location and reading the description I believe this also includes 6, and 8, and may include 12 Oakburn Crescent as well, but I've titled as per the AIC.

- Yes, this includes 2 to 12 Oakburn Cres inclusive; all 6 of those post-war 3-storey apartment/multi-plex buildings along that north side of Oakburn Crescent from Tradewind Ave to Burnwell Street
- Owners is K&G, developer is (likely) Tridel with architect (likely) Kirkor - the same as for the now completed Tridel Avonshire project (14s + 21s + 22s + 22s + 22s) directly south
- here, in 2005 Tridel/K&G originally proposed "Site Plan Application for two residential buildings, 21-storeys, 284 units (Building C) and 16-storeys, 193 units (Building D). The buildings are joined by an 8-storey linked podium/base building which has some grade related units. The buildings share a three level underground parking garage. The buildings are part of the second phase of the Avonshire development." - which appears mostly inline with the rest of Avonshire (8-storey podium was/is a bit much) but this site is adjacent to single residential houses along south side of Avondale Ave! There was lots of neighbourhood resistance especially when developer was originally talking three 30+ storey towers
Note: Local Councillor John Filion used to live very close by on Avondale Ave just east of Burnwell St - moved away after original development application was active.
What the site looks like today:


The above is taken from the Planning Rationale Report

As is this:

For those in the neighbourhood opposed to this proposal, please voice your concerns with the City of Toronto.

Send your letter to Stephen Gardiner, the contact person for community planning at the City of Toronto:
You can also CC John Filion, city councillor for the ward:

Address: 2-12 Oakburn Crescent
File # 21 185510 NNY 18 OZ
I do not agree with this proposal.
Traffic congestion is already an issue and traffic lights had to be installed on Avondale.

This location is served by 2 subway lines, both of which will soon be larger. It has (or will have when Food Basics opens) 3 full supermarkets within a 5 minute walk.
The answer to avoiding increased congestion is reduced parking and forcing the developers to market to more people who do not and do not wish to drive.

. It will be a rental-only building which does not allow for purchase.

This is a feature, not a bug. This city desperately needs more rental housing. There really is no defensible reason to oppose housing simply because it is rental.

A safety issue I have in this area is the dangerous merging into the right lane on Yonge to get into the right turning lane for Avondale. There are cars coming off the 401 and trying to get onto Yonge, while you are trying to get across without getting hit by them.

The answers to this are to modify the Yonge/401 interchange, to modify the Yonge/Avondale intersection, to reduce parking supply in new buildings, discouraging the idea of more traffic, and (as is proposed) narrowing Yonge.
What will also change, is the completion of the ring road in the next 3 or so years, which will see more traffic head north onto Doris, rather than using Yonge.
Front page story up here.

Request for Direction to oppose this one at OLT is headed to the next meeting of NYCC:

The usual issues here in terms of height/massing, but the City is somewhat more detailed than normal on the latter:


Shadowing is also identified as unacceptable.

There is also an express demand for on-site parkland decidation.