Kenojuak
Active Member
Clearly should be towers. Waste of a great site.
- Thread starter ferusian
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
Northern Light
Superstar
Would you care to elaborate on that comment?
A quick review shows:
That the site is not in an MTSA, and is greater than 1km from the nearest subway station. No new higher order transit is contemplated here.
That the site is not on a major N-S transit route, Avenue Road 61 provides service a measly every 20M off-peak service.
There is no precedent for a tower nearby.
There's no major highway nearby either.
****
Now, don't get me wrong, I don't oppose a tower here; I just find that that statement to lack substantiation.
From a density perspective, the site is a profound intensification; I don't really see that as a waste.
In fact, when you consider 665 units at average occupancy for apartments/condos, and then look at the site area, you're talking a density that's nearly double the City average.
The architecture is bland, but its First Capital and TF, Better was never a reasonable expectation.
***
Just out of curiosity, I did a quick back-of-the-envelope modelling of this site in tower form; you would need something in the range of 25s just to hold the current unit count {because the floor plates would be a lot smaller, and the separation distances greater)
But that would be more expensive to build than what's proposed............so First Capital would have to build well in excess of 30s to make the numbers work; and that presumes they could get that approved here (which I don't think they could).
But even if they could, this is a very car-centric proposal, do you really want to add 50% more cars, assuming you could jack the unit total by 50%?
***
Final thought, I would prefer a different proponent and architect, better architecture, a better site plan, and less parking with a clear plan in conjunction with the City for improved walkability, bikeability and transit service nearby. Sadly, that isn't what we have here, and likely never would.
Undead
Senior Member
Exactly. The average tower is about 12 units per floor. Here, that works out to about 55 storeys. It's already a tower, just in a different form factor. Nothing even remotely wasteful: it's an extremely chunky building for its height.
Northern Light
Superstar
Thanks, much appreciated.
Northern Light
Superstar
Appeals Report to the next meeting of NYCC:
Applicant Appealed to OLT in Dec '23
City will seek to oppose this in its current form.
The long/short:
The City is fine w/the the density here and the height, but not the massing or the site plan.
Problems noted are the buildings as massed meet neither the midrise nor tall building standards.
Vehicle Access from Avenue Road is an issue
Also the proposed location of a street next to the Douglas Ravine is within the 10M required TRCA buffer from Stable Top of Slope ( a big no no)
The City is clearly open to going taller on the site, but only if the problem issues can be addressed.
Applicant Appealed to OLT in Dec '23
City will seek to oppose this in its current form.
The long/short:
The City is fine w/the the density here and the height, but not the massing or the site plan.
Problems noted are the buildings as massed meet neither the midrise nor tall building standards.
Vehicle Access from Avenue Road is an issue
Also the proposed location of a street next to the Douglas Ravine is within the 10M required TRCA buffer from Stable Top of Slope ( a big no no)
The City is clearly open to going taller on the site, but only if the problem issues can be addressed.
Rivenbourn
New Member
Interesting article stating that Pusateri's will consolidate all locations except the Avenue location. If this block is expected to be torn down, I don't know why they wouldn't keep the Bayview Village as their flagship. I'm not fully up to speed with this development site so maybe I'm missing something 
GavinBilen
New Member
Well as someone who owns a house near the avenue location, glad that is stayingInteresting article stating that Pusateri's will consolidate all locations except the Avenue location. If this block is expected to be torn down, I don't know why they wouldn't keep the Bayview Village as their flagship. I'm not fully up to speed with this development site so maybe I'm missing something
maestro
Senior Member
The expression "waste of a site" denotes herding cattle. Often it's about number of units per hectare at today's overpriced investor driven marketplace than the quality of the homes. There's some merit to a single family home within the 416 being wasteful land use with respects to the population targets over the next 75 years. However, is converting a modest Toronto family home into three or four cramped units progress?
Northern Light
Superstar
Northern Light
Superstar
This one is the subject of a still confidential Settlement Offer at next week's meeting of Council:
Settlement is public: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-249819.pdf
Main items being the north building grew from 12 to 14-storeys (incl. indoor amenity in MPH level) and the provision of 1038sqm parkland conveyance at the north end of the site with remaining satisfied through cash-in-lieu; as well as a POPS fronting Avenue in front of the south building. See below:
Main items being the north building grew from 12 to 14-storeys (incl. indoor amenity in MPH level) and the provision of 1038sqm parkland conveyance at the north end of the site with remaining satisfied through cash-in-lieu; as well as a POPS fronting Avenue in front of the south building. See below: