From the new docs posted on Jan 11, 2022:

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca


1319b.JPG
1319b2.JPG
 
Last edited:
They lowered the tower heights but increased the podium height connecting both towers. It's not 11 storeys.

I'm of the opinion that this is overdevelopment and too much is trying to be achieved on this site. For example, I'm not sure why the City is asking for a parkland dedication; the new GO station should be the public realm contribution.

The buildings are also too big and too tall. These should be 20-25 storey point towers on a 5-7 storey podium, with a much better transition to St. Helen's area to the south.
 
sureshot said:
They lowered the tower heights but increased the podium height connecting both towers. It's not 11 storeys.

I'm of the opinion that this is overdevelopment and too much is trying to be achieved on this site. For example, I'm not sure why the City is asking for a parkland dedication; the new GO station should be the public realm contribution.

The buildings are also too big and too tall. These should be 20-25 storey point towers on a 5-7 storey podium, with a much better transition to St. Helen's area to the south.
Click to expand...
Parkland dedication is a Planning Act requirement. I don’t know if there is a land component being provided, but this will most likely be cash-in-lieu.
 
marcus_a_j said:
Parkland dedication is a Planning Act requirement. I don’t know if there is a land component being provided, but this will most likely be cash-in-lieu.
Click to expand...

The park is being provided on-site.

This is shown 2 posts up from yours in post #78
 
marcus_a_j said:
That’s a very small amount of land for the number of units proposed. The difference will be made up in cash
Click to expand...

Nope.

The parkland dedication actually exceeds what is required here.

It's enough to at least partially, if not fully fulfill the parkland requirements of an adjacent development, for which the developer is expecting City credit.

The City requires 10% of land area here (as is the default norm in areas not subject to the alternative parkland rate); The site is under 10000m2 so this exceeds the 10% required.

* Note that I completely agree w/you that space is too small and not terribly useful; but it is what it is; the City routinely accepts such dedications.
 
Northern Light said:
Nope.

The parkland dedication actually exceeds what is required here.

It's enough to at least partially, if not fully fulfill the parkland requirements of an adjacent development, for which the developer is expecting City credit.

The City requires 10% of land area here (as is the default norm in areas not subject to the alternative parkland rate); The site is under 10000m2 so this exceeds the 10% required.

* Note that I completely agree w/you that space is too small and not terribly useful; but it is what it is; the City routinely accepts such dedications.
Click to expand...
I can’t read the site stats nor have I gone through all the maps to figure out if this is a priority area or not so I’ll take your word.
 
Northern Light said:
Jumping out at me are a new opening through the site from Bloor; and the additions of trees to the Bloor streetscape.

They've also added a layer of definition between the floors trimming out the brick.

Let's see what else changed; from the Cover Letter: (Quite a bit, as it turns out)

View attachment 374917
View attachment 374918
View attachment 374919
View attachment 374920
View attachment 374921
Click to expand...
On balance, a positive set of changes, though honestly I'd rather keep the taller towers with a slimmer floor plate. It's the bulk, not the height, that I care about. Loss of sky views on Bloor are going to affect many more people than a bit of shade on a corner of what is honestly a relatively sparsely used park.
 
New renderings are updated in the database! The original storey count went from 33 and 31 storeys to 31 & 27 storeys. The building height went from115.40m & 109.40m to 105.30m & 93.90m. The total unit count increased from 634 units to 825 units. The total parking count increased from 215 parking spaces to 268 parking spaces.
 
Is there a comparison on the Unit-Mix & average Unit sizes (Before and After) with these Changes..? Thx!
 
HousingNowTO said:
Is there a comparison on the Unit-Mix & average Unit sizes (Before and After) with these Changes..? Thx!
Click to expand...

Don't see 'average unit size'; but unit mix is shown here:

1647008759642.png


Across all unit types you can take the Residential GFA and divide by the number of units.

Was: 56877 / 634 = 89.1m2

Is now 60437/825 = 73.25m2

Note that residential GFA will include common areas on residential floors etc. along w/lobby, and resident amenities.

So this is not a direct proxy for unit size. But you can assume that excepting the amenities numbers above, that most of that decline in residential GFA per unit will show up
as smaller unit size a drop almost certainly greater than 10%
 
Northern Light said:
Across all unit types you can take the Residential GFA and divide by the number of units.

Was: 56877 / 634 = 89.1m2

Is now 60437/825 = 73.25m2

Note that residential GFA will include common areas on residential floors etc. along w/lobby, and resident amenities.

So this is not a direct proxy for unit size. But you can assume that excepting the amenities numbers above, that most of that decline in residential GFA per unit will show up
as smaller unit size a drop almost certainly greater than 10%
Click to expand...

How did they generate extra R-GFA in shorter towers..?

Did the city let them "break" the 750 M2 floorplate guidelines...?? (*I hope so)
TOWER_FLOOR_PLATE_2013.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
Did the city let them "break" the 750 M2 floorplate guidelines...?? (*I hope so)
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. * (well it's not approved yet, but that is what is being submitted after discussions w/City Staff)

The floor plates are now 891m2 and 895m2
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top