yoshirocks702

yoshirocks702

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 18, 2016
Messages
216
Reaction score
467
"The application seeks to add a third building to the subject site, adding more rental housing to the Emery Village neighbourhood. The application provides for a new 36-storey building containing 480 new rental dwelling units and 565 square metres of daycare space. The existing buildings and all 517 existing rental housing units will be retained. The new development contains a total gross floor area of approximately 35,660 square metres, resulting in a total site density of 2.85 times the area of the lot. (20 183834 WET 07 OZ)"

http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=TXZO9GYvnC2WpI03Z/rNSQ==

Capture 2.JPG


I wonder where they're going to put it?
 

Attachments

  • Capture.JPG
    Capture.JPG
    241.7 KB · Views: 160
Last edited:
Some more docs are up: looks like they put it on the west side of the site.

Curious that this is proposed before phase 3 and 4 of the casa site across the street. I agree that we need purpose built rental in the city but this whole intersection is rental except for 1 building. Having a few condos in the mix would be a good thing, if they sell the site of phase 3 and 4 and/or repurpose them into condos.

3.JPG


Capture 6.JPG


Capture 7.JPG


Capture 8.JPG


Capture 9.JPG


Capture 4.JPG


Capture 5.JPG
 
Last edited:
So there's some interesting stuff here.

This site is adjacent to Lindy Lou Park which is listed with Toronto's Ravine By-Law and regulated by TRCA.

Though at first blush, it would be very hard to tell why.

Existing Area, Aerial Photo:

1613766725398.png


Mostly mowed grass, very gentle slopes............

But wait a minute.................

Why are the TRCA and the proponent having a difficult time agreeing on a top-of-slope line??

Because the area has been artificially filled in.

The ravine is hidden (as a landform).

And if there's a ravine.............

There's water.

A fair bit in fact.

Emery Creek is piped underneath this park.

This next Aerial is immediately to the south of the subject site, and here you can see the Creek emerge from hiding.

1613766895764.png


To the north, we can see the remnant ravine feature; though I'm not sure if there's any water on the surface:

1613766997705.png


Google suggests that there may be surface water (it shows on their map); if there is, it obviously disappears into a pipe well north of Finch.

****

I think it would be feasible to daylight the creek here; though it would require removal/relocation of the tennis courts.

Removal of a small number of homes, adjacent to this tract on Lindylou Road would allow for that relocation.

It wouldn't be reasonable to put such a project onto the proponent here.

Though I would like to see cursory consideration given to the possibility to make sure that the building doesn't preclude that option in the future.

My only other concern here, aesthetic aside, would be the level of sustained de-watering required for the parking garage.

That may be mitigable, however.
 
Last edited:
HousingNowTO said:
...inside the PMTSA around a new Finch LRT node, but "Hey, let's use the Secondary Plan from... {~checks-notes~} ... 2002..." ?????
Click to expand...
Ehh, let 'em run it up the (world's tallest) flagpole.

Oops, never happened.

42
 
That article makes me angry. First, it’s nuts that we’re trying to tone down density right next to transit. Next, these are rental units being proposed - and at least a chunk are below market. Cutting this proposal works against the goals these people claim. Finally, you really do need critical mass for businesses to be successful, and preventing that mass from accumulating means that residents have to travel everywhere for their needs (often by car) which contributes to the congestion the neighbourhood is so scared of.

In summary, the actions by Cllr. Peruzza and NIMBYs would reduce housing, make businesses less viable, keep the built form car-oriented and increase congestion. It’s stupid.
 
allengeorge said:
That article makes me angry. First, it’s nuts that we’re trying to tone down density right next to transit. Next, these are rental units being proposed - and at least a chunk are below market. Cutting this proposal works against the goals these people claim. Finally, you really do need critical mass for businesses to be successful, and preventing that mass from accumulating means that residents have to travel everywhere for their needs (often by car) which contributes to the congestion the neighbourhood is so scared of.

In summary, the actions by Cllr. Peruzza and NIMBYs would reduce housing, make businesses less viable, keep the built form car-oriented and increase congestion. It’s stupid.
Click to expand...

The City spent years upzoning and planning for the new FINCH WEST LRT Protected Major Transit Service Areas (PMTSAs) around the Stations stops at Finch/Keele and Finch/Sentinel near York University --- and then Councillor Peruzza (*with the support of Council) cut out huge sections - and downzoned them on the floor of council at the very last-minute.

The same Councillors who demand "Inclusionary Zoning" (IZ) in new developments won't make the default trade-offs in Height and Density to make the IZ units viable. :rolleyes:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1340021306637606915
 
WislaHD said:
It seems as though imaginary affordable units are more important come election time than actual affordable units.
Click to expand...
"theoretical" affordable-housing is very popular ---- actual affordable-housing at the speed and scale needed within the City of Toronto is not.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top