^As I said before, the developer can sacrifice a minimal amount of land for the TTC to expand the existing streetcar platform or alter the whole approach and create an enhanced platform. The developer could accommodate this by having the rear part of the development cantilever over new platform/track. I shudder at this because we're dealing with Trinity as the developer, but this *could* be in exchange for more density.

The way the plaza is currently designed, it's not designed as really a pass-through or as a destination point. It's an in-between haphazard approach.
 
Amare said:
^As I said before, the developer can sacrifice a minimal amount of land for the TTC to expand the existing streetcar platform or alter the whole approach and create an enhanced platform. The developer could accommodate this by having the rear part of the development cantilever over new platform/track. I shudder at this because we're dealing with Trinity as the developer, but this *could* be in exchange for more density.

The way the plaza is currently designed, it's not designed as really a pass-through or as a destination point. It's an in-between haphazard approach.
Click to expand...

I see you're solidly stuck in cloud-cuckoo land at least with regard to the TTC. Have you ever, for any reason, had any conversations with the TTC?

The prosed plaza doubles the width of the sidewalk at its narrowest point and more than triples the width at its widest point. That plus the additional setback on Bloor is not insignificant.

Also, when I look at their drawings again, I see that they are , in fact, proposing a step down towards the west end of the building, thereby meeting another of your requirements.
BloorW-Dundas_SitePlan1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm new here, so please be "gentle"...
I apologize if any of my comments or questions were addressed before, I only went back 2 or 3 pages.
1- I want something to be built there, the area needs it.
2- I'm all for building along Bloor and as close to subway stations.
3- This is FUGLY, which makes it fit extremely well with 1539, which may be one of Toronto's top 10 ugliest buildings.
4- Didn't Giraffe get ultimately shut down because of logistical issues with TTC right of way?
As if the traffic flow with streetcars and parking on west side (south of Bloor) and left turners out of Loblaws and left turn on Dundas at Roncy wasn't already enough of a nightmare, we already see unnecessary lane reduction in the morning from cement trucks staging at the construction site between FreshCo and Crossways (Sorry, I don't know the exact address or name of development)
PXL_20200924_122407618.jpg
 

Attachments

  • PXL_20200924_122407618.jpg
    PXL_20200924_122407618.jpg
    161.6 KB · Views: 247
Frenchie_TO said:
I'm new here, so please be "gentle"...
I apologize if any of my comments or questions were addressed before, I only went back 2 or 3 pages.
1- I want something to be built there, the area needs it.
2- I'm all for building along Bloor and as close to subway stations.
3- This is FUGLY, which makes it fit extremely well with 1539, which may be one of Toronto's top 10 ugliest buildings.
4- Didn't Giraffe get ultimately shut down because of logistical issues with TTC right of way?
As if the traffic flow with streetcars and parking on west side (south of Bloor) and left turners out of Loblaws and left turn on Dundas at Roncy wasn't already enough of a nightmare, we already see unnecessary lane reduction in the morning from cement trucks staging at the construction site between FreshCo and Crossways (Sorry, I don't know the exact address or name of development)
PXL_20200924_122407618.jpg
Click to expand...
1. I think everybody agrees on that.
2. Again, I think everybody agrees on that but there is disagreement about the size/density of what should be allowed.
3. Some agree, some don't. (for the record, I am one of those that doesn't think it is that ugly)
4. Giraffe was turned down primarily because of it's size and the possibility of interference with TTC access (the current proposal commits to a right in/right out arrangement to reduce impact on TTC operations).

One thing that is different about this from Giraffe is that the developer has committed to widening the sidewalk along bout the Dundas and Bloor frontage which will alleviate issues for people going to and coming from Dundas West Station.
 
Jimto said:
1. I think everybody agrees on that.
2. Again, I think everybody agrees on that but there is disagreement about the size/density of what should be allowed.
3. Some agree, some don't. (for the record, I am one of those that doesn't think it is that ugly)
4. Giraffe was turned down primarily because of it's size and the possibility of interference with TTC access (the current proposal commits to a right in/right out arrangement to reduce impact on TTC operations).

One thing that is different about this from Giraffe is that the developer has committed to widening the sidewalk along bout the Dundas and Bloor frontage which will alleviate issues for people going to and coming from Dundas West Station.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your response.

As for the look of it, my first impression was that it wasn't that bad, but after I looked again, all I could see was the similarities with 1539.

During the approval process, is there any consideration given to the logistics during the actual construction period or are they only looking at the final product?
To me, this is the biggest issue for TTC traffic.
I mean, a developer could promise to give the TTC additional space once it's built, but considering the current nightmare of streetcars' backup along Roncy, I can't imagine if you add all the necessary service trucks, not even considering workers' vehicles.
 
Frenchie_TO said:
Thanks for your response.

As for the look of it, my first impression was that it wasn't that bad, but after I looked again, all I could see was the similarities with 1539.

During the approval process, is there any consideration given to the logistics during the actual construction period or are they only looking at the final product?
To me, this is the biggest issue for TTC traffic.
I mean, a developer could promise to give the TTC additional space once it's built, but considering the current nightmare of streetcars' backup along Roncy, I can't imagine if you add all the necessary service trucks, not even considering workers' vehicles.
Click to expand...

The approvals process is only about the proposal itself and, typically, doesn't factor in the logistics of the construction process and the disruption involved. It's up to the City to manage that.

The TTC is, IME, an unhelpful organization. Developers have often approached them with positive ideas supported by community members and just had the door closed on them. They like to make their own plans in isolation and use the powers and tools they have available to them to make them happen. The backup of streetcars on Dundas seems to be getting worse but I don't know why.
 
Frenchie_TO said:
I'm new here, so please be "gentle"...
I apologize if any of my comments or questions were addressed before, I only went back 2 or 3 pages.
1- I want something to be built there, the area needs it.
2- I'm all for building along Bloor and as close to subway stations.
3- This is FUGLY, which makes it fit extremely well with 1539, which may be one of Toronto's top 10 ugliest buildings.
4- Didn't Giraffe get ultimately shut down because of logistical issues with TTC right of way?
As if the traffic flow with streetcars and parking on west side (south of Bloor) and left turners out of Loblaws and left turn on Dundas at Roncy wasn't already enough of a nightmare, we already see unnecessary lane reduction in the morning from cement trucks staging at the construction site between FreshCo and Crossways (Sorry, I don't know the exact address or name of development)
PXL_20200924_122407618.jpg
Click to expand...
1. Also agreed!
2. Ditto!
3. That's subjective (re: both buildings). This is not my favourite proposal in town, but it's far from what I think is FUGLY. (Unlike the building south of it, which is FUGLY all the way, and anyone who says otherwise in this case is objectively wrong, stamped it, locked it, no erasies.)
4. Giraffe was shut down as overbuilding, on the congestion with the TTC station, and on what was a smaller lot at the time: more property has been assembled for this proposal. It was also shut down at a time when the City had more power to say no. Recent provincial legislation gives developers with sites within 750 metres of rapid transit stations increased ability to build big and tall than when Giraffe was proposed.
You're talking about 2376 Dundas West. The thread is here. You can find nearby projects using our map linked at the top of each page.

42
 
Message from Councillor Gord Perks:

1540 Bloor Development Application Update | Gord Perks

gordperks.ca gordperks.ca


1540 Bloor Development Application Update

I am writing to update you on the 1540-1550 Bloor Street West development application. This application, at the N/W corner of Bloor and Dundas St West, proposes to amend the Zoning By-law to allow a 25-storey mixed-use building with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential uses above.

The owner of the site at 1540-1550 Bloor Street West has appealed its Zoning Amendment application to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT), formerly called the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).

A Case Management conference by video has been scheduled for 9:30 AM on Thursday, October 29, 2020.

The purpose of the Case Management conference is to identify parties and participants, provide procedural directions, and to potentially fix a date and place for the hearing and estimate its length.

A City Solicitor will attend the conference to advise that City Planning staff are targeting the submission of a Request for Direction Report with recommendations to November Toronto East York Community Council (TEYCC), provided comments on the applicant’s submission. from all relevant operational divisions, have been provided. The Direction Report will be based on a an evaluation of the application by City Planning staff including input received from commenting divisions and agencies, the community at a pre-application and a virtual community meeting, as well as communications by email and phone.

The LPAT Notice below details the requirements for those who wish to participate in the Case Management conference. Further it details the process to view the Case Conference.

I have heard from many of you during the first stages of this application process. Your concerns and informed comments are a crucial part of this process. Your involvement at this stage of the process is important. If you wish to have your concerns heard by the LPAT, you should attend the October 29th video Case Management Conference and obtain permission to speak at the LPAT hearing that is to be set for a later date. If there are a number of community members present holding the same position on the application, the LPAT Adjudicator may ask one or two members to speak for the group at the hearing.

If you are interested in attending the LPAT Conference but have questions or concerns, please feel free to contact my office for assistance councillor_perks@toronto.ca.

My office will continue to update the community as new information becomes available.
 
Walked along Dundas north of Bloor (or west if you'd prefer!) and no matter what's approved for this site, the disruption to TTC, traffic and pedestrians is going to be huge. The project north of Crossways has a big lot with plenty of room for trucks on site but the disruption is terrible. The City just doesn't appear to be able to manage the impact of these projects on traffic and the public space.
 
Jimto said:
Walked along Dundas north of Bloor (or west if you'd prefer!) and no matter what's approved for this site, the disruption to TTC, traffic and pedestrians is going to be huge. The project north of Crossways has a big lot with plenty of room for trucks on site but the disruption is terrible. The City just doesn't appear to be able to manage the impact of these projects on traffic and the public space.
Click to expand...

Yup, they allow developers to block lanes of traffic for years. Is this a common practice in other cities too?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top