[Lake Ontario]

Revised from 29, 27, 25, & 23 storeys to 35, 35, 31, & 25 storeys. Total of 1,419 residential units.

In direct response to comments from staff, the development concept has changed since the original submission. Generally, these revisions include; removal of the north-south vehicular “woonerf” condition centralized to the interior of the buildings, maintaining the existing access point from Royal Windsor Drive to facilitate continued access rights (as per an existing easement agreement)enjoyed by the existing plaza to the east, increases in tower heights and reduction of podium heights, introduction of a public park block, and relocation of retail/non-residential uses.

Elevation looking west.
From left to right:
Foreground (Phase 2): Tower 4 - 25 storeys, Tower 3: 35 storeys
Background (Phase 1): Tower 2 - 31 storeys, Tower 1: 35 storeys

Ground Floor Plan:

October 2024 development application available here under "2077-2105 Royal Windsor Drive"
Planning Justification Report Addendum
Concept Plan
Ground Floor Plan
Site Statistics

 

[christiesplits]

Revised from 29, 27, 25, & 23 storeys to 35, 35, 31, & 25 storeys. Total of 1,419 residential units.

View attachment 614429
Elevation looking west.
From left to right:
Foreground (Phase 2): Tower 4 - 25 storeys, Tower 3: 35 storeys
Background (Phase 1): Tower 2 - 31 storeys, Tower 1: 35 storeys
View attachment 614428
Ground Floor Plan:
View attachment 614427

October 2024 development application available here under "2077-2105 Royal Windsor Drive"
Planning Justification Report Addendum
Concept Plan
Ground Floor Plan
Site Statistics

The 35 storey max height is consistent with the heights for new developments at Port Credit GO, but much lower than the 60 storey proposals at Oakville GO.

Pedestrian infrastructure aside, the intersection has a very good Walk Score.

 

[Toronto1834]

What is with that new public ROW running parallel to Royal Windsor that separates the SE building from Royal Windsor? It will effectively place pedestrians on an "island" between two roads. Looks like a typical suburban planning mistake from 1990.

 

[xy3]

What gets me is "the ediface is way too tall"

These are many of the same Nimby liberals who fear monger over building homes on industrial wasteland or pesticide-laden former monoculture agriculture brown belt .

You cant have your cake and eat it too. Either build upwards or build outwards or scale back on immigration. Yet none of these people with greenbelt lawn signs would ever put up a "scale back immigration" or "waive development charges on transit oriented projects" sign.

They bitch & moan without actually giving some thought to feasible solutions.

 

[Tim MacDonald]

What is with that new public ROW running parallel to Royal Windsor that separates the SE building from Royal Windsor? It will effectively place pedestrians on an "island" between two roads. Looks like a typical suburban planning mistake from 1990.

It sounds like it is to allow this driveway on the adjacent property to remain one way. Full image is on page one of the thread.