N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
35,401
Reaction score
102,932
The Lobbyist Registry tell us that this strip plaza at the south-east corner of Lawrence and Birchmount is in play.

1687180627831.png


Immediately to the east is a late 60s/early 70s era rental building at 12s. The tallest area precedent is the VHL developed building just to the north of the intersection, at 19s

Aerial pic:

1687181118197.png


Site Size: ~ 4600m2/50000ft2

The site is nominally large enough for two towers, however, the separation distance from the building to the south might be a problem as it could result in a negligible setback from Lawrence.

* The apartment to the south is midrise and the separation issue would only arise on prospective redevelopment. I see a limiting distance agreement as quite viable here.

Given the site's location, I don't peceive shadowing to be a material issue.

* side tangent, there's place in this plaza called 'Coffee In'; it actually makes half-decent pho.
 
Last edited:
As you learned about here first..................

There is a proposal here; the application for which is now public in the AIC:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Back in June, I indicated that I thought this would probably a 2 tower proposal, and indeed it is; glad to see my math skills are holding up.

The proposal is for a 24s and a 21s both at 750m2 floor plates, sitting on a six-storey podium, inclusive of tower height.

From the Docs:

1696334307766.png


1696334359939.png


1696334409716.png


Site Plan:

1696334468228.png



Ground Floor Plan:

1696334527206.png


1696334583756.png

Parking Ratio: 0.4 (based on resident spaces only)

Elevator Ratio: (both towers together) 6 elevators, 526 units equals 1.14 elevators per 100 units

Comments:

For Kirkor, the design is not all that busy. But it could certainly use some refinement.

Can we start by adding colour somewhere please, at least on the podium.

The overall height/density ask is fine here; but I would prefer a slightly shorter podium and that the retail not be inside, but the podium pushed back an additional 1M on the Lawrence frontage. I see no reason that any reduction in podium height and floor plate can't be offset by additional height in the towers here.

I noted in the first post in this thread I thought they might try to skimp a bit on the Lawrence sidewalk to make the numbers work, that's what I see here, give me my meter back please.

The ground floor retail plan is ghastly. Very shallow, this will absolutely result in tons of window wrap. Where does the shelving go? the storage space? The employee washroom? No.

Remove most/all residential amenity space and the 3 ground level residential units and reorganize this space to create more functional retail forms, larger, and deeper. There would probably still be some leftover space on the southern elevation which can be amenity space if desired.

Remove some/all residential units from the podium roof level in favour of the relocated amenity space from the ground level.

Good number of elevators, parking is marginally high, but acceptable for the location given the distance to rapid transit.

Landscape Plan - good soil volumes, silva cells, but no irrigation. Tree species list needs work; I don't see a tulip tree working here, I'd rather not see a ginko or another freeman.

Only serious issue to me on Landscape is that there are no trees proposed on the Birchmount frontage.
 
Smaller retail units should be a focus in this part of the city. While it's no love lost for an anti-urban strip mall, Lawrence supports an especially vibrant collection of restaurants and my worry is that will be lost as these plazas are redeveloped. Although I've never tried Coffee In, for me it's hard to go anywhere other than Pho Metro down the street.

I agree with concerns about colour and trees too, this intersection is a bit of a windswept wasteland, especially the SW side.
 
...adding to my watch list. Thx!
 
Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of SCC:


Changes in heights here.

Tower A is up to 28s; Tower B is down to 11s.

From the Report:

1707143878915.png


Approval will be subject to an 'H' or holding provision until:

1707143973243.png


** Peculiar here, there are no new Supporting Docs that line up w/the major changes in the report.

@Paclo is duly flagged.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top