[dowlingm]

Beyond “31 stories - $$$” what is the city building rationale to further intensify this area, and use construction capacity to demolish the embodied energy and resources of this building? I assume it is structurally sound. On one hand we seem to realize that pouring people into comparatively tiny zones of the city, some of which has been intensified previously, while surrounded by oceans of D and semiD is not rational, and then, this.

I know this is a point which could be equally made around other developments, several of whom are in the vicinity such as those along Davisville between Mt P and the subway. Would loosening zoning alone (and thus creating more sites off these corridors) collapse the economic rationale for this sort of application?

 

[interchange42]

Beyond “31 stories - $$$” what is the city building rationale to further intensify this area, and use construction capacity to demolish the embodied energy and resources of this building? I assume it is structurally sound. On one hand we seem to realize that pouring people into comparatively tiny zones of the city, some of which has been intensified previously, while surrounded by oceans of D and semiD is not rational, and then, this.

I know this is a point which could be equally made around other developments, several of whom are in the vicinity such as those along Davisville between Mt P and the subway. Would loosening zoning alone (and thus creating more sites off these corridors) collapse the economic rationale for this sort of application?

What does "city building rationale" or an assumed corporate responsibility for the embodied energy of existing buildings have to do with a property owner wanting to maximize whatever density the City will allow them to have to on their land? Unless compelled by law to address such issues, property owners are just going to look for ways to make more money from their holdings, and if upping the density with a demolition and rebuild promises to be lucrative, they're going to pursue it.

We should be allowing gentle density increases across the city in the Yellow Belt through Missing Middle Housing, but since — so far — we don't, applications for bigger buildings where there already are big buildings are going to be the main way of increasing housing stock (and profit) in the Big TO.

42

 

[AlbertC]

View looking the current condition of the property:

 

[andresmmax]

I must say those two big walls of a building at 140 Erskine are an eye sore. Wonder if they will remain there in the future.

 

[Northern Light]

This one is before Council next week in the form of a Request for Direction Report:

Agenda Item History 2024.CC14.4

Agenda Item History 2024.CC14.4

secure.toronto.ca

It has the appearance of a Settlement Offer.

OLT Hearing is currently scheduled for July '24.

 

[Paclo]

The council-endorsed settlement proposal has been implemented via resubmission, changes are as follows:

• Storeys increased from 31 to 35-storeys
• Height increased from 107.05 to 119.15m
• Total residential units increased from 322 to 366 (inclusive of 26 rental replacement)
• Total vehicular parking reduced from 87 to 86

Updated renderings:

 

[Paclo]

The above settlement has been allowed in part with an interim order by the OLT.