AlbertC said:
The streetscape plan looks great. It's about time that the outer perimeter of the STC node gets properly integrated and become more walkable.
Click to expand...

Completely agree.

Though, to be meangingful at all, a much larger area will need to have those public realm improvements; or you get bike lanes and sidewalks to nowhere.

I'm not sure how far they envision extending those improvements in conjunction w/this project.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm not sure how far they envision extending those improvements in conjunction w/this project.
Click to expand...
I'd be extremely surprised if there were any coordination going on, given this city's track record...

Given this is a CreateTO site, it is likely completely silo'd from other City departments except for the Affordable Housing Office.
 
ZBA application submitted:

Development Applications

Project description:
Erect two residential towers including affordable housing and daycare space above a common shared podium with 51,401 sq.m. (553,276 sq.ft.) of residential gross floor area.
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Schmitt Architects: 42 storeys

1624750503108.png


1624750549234.png


Some notable revisions:
  • The height of the taller tower has been increased from 37 to 42 storeys
  • The total number of residential units has increased from 602 to 645
 
Last edited:
HousingNowTO said:
Good thread that covers the "Public-Comments" section of last night's meeting...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1420066820728438786
Click to expand...

From said thread:

1627417901805.png


1627418010672.png


*****

Forumers will know that Alex and I have been known to disagree from time to time...........

LOL

But we're in perfect agreement on his post below:

1627418097322.png


For further emphasis:

1) The existing site is a surface parking lot, it is not attractive, or an ecologically sound use of land, nor a justifiable one in the light of the current need for housing.
But I can't see why one would have any desire to retain it regardless.

2) Follow me here.......the parking lot generates traffic; the condos will likely generate less traffic than a commuter lot...............why is anyone on about traffic?

3) Bigotry against those that need affordable housing is so much offensive nonsense.............but even if we let that go, for one moment (not that we should)........ this proposal is 50% market-rent and 50% middle-income affordable.
This is not Rent-Geared-to-Income housing as most would think of it. The fears are offensive, overblown swill!

4) The public realm enhancements here, combined with decent architecture will serve to enhance existing property values and quality-of-life for residents. So even if one placed a premium on selfishness, here that should make one pro rather than anti, when it comes to this development.

*****

I have a somewhat different take than Alex on how to improve the meeting process; as best one can (there will always be annoying, uninformed, people with an inflated sense of self-importance who find a mic at these things; the object is for there to be fewer of those, and more helpful comments instead)

I think the planners should squarely address the arguments they know will come from the get go, honestly, politely, but with clear and unambiguous facts.

Before anyone goes off ranting on traffic, let's hear point blank what the traffic study says; and perhaps, a brief explanation as to 'why' it says that, where the result might not be intuitive to the average member of the public.

People may have what preferences they wish on height; but if the case is clearly made for it; as it surely is here when you look at the surrounding buildings............that should be addressed out of the gate too; ie. this is why this height is proposed; what is permitted and if Planning is fine with the height, making that clear (without being insulting).

Tell people what's really on the table in a consultation. Many people seem to come to such meetings imagining they have unlimited say on what happens on property they don't own.
Of course, we all know that is not the case, that's not what the consultation process was ever meant to be about; and it serves no one well if there isn't clarity around that.

A meeting like this should be about:

a) Did the proponent/applicant, City Planning or anyone else involved in the application get any material fact wrong?
b) Is there any material fact that has been overlooked in this application?
c) Are there any 'Minor' modifications that could be made to this proposal that would improve it from a community perspective?
d) Are there any particular community benefits that this project might contribute too?

END

That's all that's really on the table, and people should be told that; preferably in the Notice for the meeting!
 
Last edited:
Project description from Diamond Schmitt's website:

dsai.ca

Housing Now, 158 Borough Drive | Diamond Schmitt

158 Borough Drive is part of the Housing Now initiative of the City of Toronto and CreateTO to accelerate the development of affordable housing
dsai.ca dsai.ca


Housing Now, 158 Borough Drive

Diamond Schmitt’s 158 Borough Drive is designed to meet three objectives. First, it provides 300 affordable housing units within a high density 600 apartment vertical village. Second, the design strengthens the modernist heritage precinct of the Scarborough Civic Centre and, in particular, enhances public access to the civic space: Albert Campbell Square. Thirdly, with the integration of a new green court and landscaped boulevard, the design engages the adjacent forest resource, a mature forested woodlot.

158 Borough Drive is one of 17 sites in Toronto, part of the Housing Now initiative of the City of Toronto and CreateTO to accelerate the development of affordable housing. Housing Now maximizes City-owned land to provide mixed-income, mixed-use developments supporting transit-oriented and complete communities.

The design supports the vision for Scarborough Town Centre as a vibrant, sustainable, transit-oriented community. The design optimizes the site with 600 affordable and rental units, ranging from 1 bedroom to three bedroom units distributed between two towers. A podium connects the buildings with a 63-child daycare facility, resident amenity area, and community lobbies. The two towers are positioned for views of sky, landscape, the entrance court gardens, and to minimize shadow on Albert Campbell Square.

The site design creates a new public realm including a woonerf —a curbless, shared pedestrian street — bisecting the residential precinct, a pedestrian and cycling promenade along the south side, and a ramped public promenade on the west side of the site to provide new access to Albert Campbell Square. The landscape strategy unifies the site and significantly enhances the landscape in the community to create a strong pedestrian realm on all four sides of the project.
 
Based on the Feb. 11th MILESTONE report from CreateTO - their original target of 50% of units as "Affordable-Rental" has slid back to 1/3rd as "Affordable-Rental". Assuming that change is based on their RFP and CMHC experiences with the Victoria Park site at a 50/50 split. They probably needed some Market-Condo (215 units) in the mix to help manage the "RISK" concerns from CMHC, etc.

Good to see that this site should be Rezoned in the next 60-days --- and RFP'd this Summer.

PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ra/bgrd/backgroundfile-222173.pdf


1646074462405.png
 
At P&H next week on the 25th - only real change is the "flexibility" on the Unit Mix... 'The applications propose to update existing residential permissions to permit a mixed-used building with two residential towers of 27 and 42-storeys with approximately 645 dwelling units, of which between 33 percent – 50 percent will be provided as affordable rental housing through the Housing Now Initiative.'

PH32.1 - Housing Now - 140, 150, 156, 158 and 160 Borough Drive - City Initiated Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-Law Amendment - Final Report
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2022.PH32.1
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top