ADRM said:
1. That any new development be based on good urban planning principles and be respectful of the City of Toronto's Official Plan

2. That any new development demonstrate an appropriate transition in scale to the adjacent neighbourhood

3. That plans be devised with the community and be respectful of local residents' feedback and not be appealed to either the OMB or the proposed Local Planning Appeals Tribunal
Click to expand...

This is probably going to be the bone of contention. We're going from the corner of Yonge and Eg, a high-order transit hub, to 2-storey houses and a 3-storey police station. Hard to achieve an 'appropriate transition'; it's either going to be too much or not enough, depending on which side you stand on.

5IhNhb6.png


The red circle is ~500m from the edge of the SW corner, and does not factor in additional entrances into the transit station. West of the subway trench and south of Eglinton, everything within the circle is zoned low-density residential except Eglinton Square and the police station. I find it to be completely nonsense. So now that I think about it, #1 is ridiculous too, and it will be inevitable that #3 will happen, if Matlow convinces city council to object to a proposal.
 
Attended the Open House hosted by Josh Matlow last night. Was much more cordial than I anticipated, but I was not considering that this is early days and there is no proposal on the table. Many thoughtful ideas were flowing.
  1. Matlow emphasized that this proposal needs to be devised with the community, be respectful of local residents' feedback, and not be appealed to either the OMB or the proposed Local Planning Appeals Tribunal. He implied that agreement was made and baked into Oxford's agreement to buy the air/development rights to this land.
  2. Oxford once again laid out their broad objectives for the site. They tried to emphasize that this will be a long-term asset for them, and they're not here to flip the land for max profit today; they want to make sure they're making something that works for the community, and is done right so it is sustainable over the long-term. It was also emphasized they want a mix of uses, including retail, office (more than what exists now), and residential (specifically, high-quality rental).
  3. A planner from City Planning attended, and explained the existing zoning and OP coverage. Max density is 7x, max height on the north part of the site is 120m (forget the height for the south), and buildings must transition down towards Duplex at a 60 degree slope. It was also mentioned that there is a lock/hold that prohibits any development until City Council is satisfied that there is sufficient services and amenities provided at the site.
So it seems to me that the City has Oxford by the balls. It sounds like it will be very challenging to balance all the demands here (public and community space, amenities, light penetration, etc.) within the density and height confines, and maximize economic viability. It's TTC-owned, Build Toronto-managed, and free from luxuries of an appeal body.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Well in that scope of thinking about it, sure. Doesn't mean a new deal would get any further though.
Click to expand...

No, but the city wants or should want this area developed to work in lockstep with transit plans. It also offers some degree of relief to have a strong urban node here that helps to take some pressure off the idea that all big developments - and people - should have to go downtown. Developing a strong node means not all transit riders and/or cars will have to continue into the core. They should in fact be excited about making this node stronger and more dense.
 
Gee look around at the shitshow going on with development of this area, and here the city has the opportunity to work with the developer and there is already negativity:eek:
Let the developer build something iconic (a 100 storey building) if it means a nice big park, a square, transportation infrastructure, retail, etc. WTF
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee look around at the shitshow going on with development of this area, and here the city has the opportunity to work with the developer and there is already negativity:eek:
Let the developer build something iconic (a 100 storey building) if it means a nice big park, a square, transportation infrastructure, retail, etc. WTF
Click to expand...
100% agree.

If we drop the ball on this opportunity, at the intersection of two rapid transit lines, we would be doing an injustice to future generations of Torontonians.
 
It's been a while since there has been an update on this project. I think there was supposed to be a meeting in the Fall. Has anyone heard anything?
 
Only thing of note I've seen was through the Midtown in Focus update. While height limitss have been definitively added for many parts of the area, Canada's Square's height limits are subject to 'further comprehensive study.' There's also proposed parkland where part of the parking garage with some nice older facade stands.

upload_2017-11-10_10-1-4.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-10_10-1-4.png
    upload_2017-11-10_10-1-4.png
    268.8 KB · Views: 737
am29 said:
I really do wish midtown/ Y-E had more permeability and some of the bigger blocks or parcels were broken down to allow for more pedestrian through fares
Click to expand...
You can already pretty much walk from Yonge to Redpath mid-block between buildings. I do wish the city took a role to make it more formal though, as to encourage it.

North of Eglinton, there definitely needs to be more pedestrian connections definitely, between it and Roehampton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top