AlvinofDiaspar said:
I wonder if this will help trigger a mass redevelopment of that stretch of Spadina (not necessarily a bad thing, but it will be disruptive).

AoD
Click to expand...

At that scale and massing, with a comparable (or better) quality of design...........yes please.

* subject to preserving any quality heritage buildings; though there aren't many in that stretch.

But, among others, I'd love to see this pair of facades kept and restored:

1622485471396.png


There's a lot to like in this block on the east side also:

1622485541475.png
 
No new renderings are updated in the database. Some minor detail is changed in the database which is listed in the section down below:

The overall building height slightly increased from 45.78m to 46.29m. The overall total parking spaces just increased from 34 parking spaces to 35 parking spaces.
 
Yep, Anime Xtreme would make a fine retail addition to this block...

...plus they don't have to go far from their current location. <3
 
Love this building! We need more of this style of facade . And I've noticed there has been more of the early 1900s style condo popping up in the Spadina Avenue corridor!
 
Despite it being a moderate-height building, and having 22 x OPEN DOOR affordable-housing units, it has been appealed to the OLT-21-001851..?!!?!?

315-325 Spadina Avenue
Gabriela Salvatore v. Toronto (City)

Going to a Case Management Conference in mid-May 2022.

1647273767269.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
Despite it being a moderate-height building, and having 22 x OPEN DOOR affordable-housing units, it has been appealed to the OLT-21-001851..?!!?!?

315-325 Spadina Avenue
Gabriela Salvatore v. Toronto (City)

Going to a Case Management Conference in mid-May 2022.

View attachment 385322
Click to expand...

This is a very reasonable proposal in just about every conceivable way.

Very unfortunate.
 
Last edited:
HousingNowTO said:
Ask me again WHY we want to reduce access for these kinds of OLT appeals...?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1491082493071851520
Click to expand...

I'm still going to disagree w/you there.

Because removing that right, across-the-board would benefit a good project like this, but would equally benefit a complete disaster.

I favour tightening rules around grounds for appeal, so as to eliminate more frivolous complaints that just waste everyone's time.

I also favour much more aggressive timelines for mediation where that would be helpful, rather than waiting months, or longer to have that kick in......

We still need to see the grounds for appeal here, but at first blush I'm inclined to this being in the wasteful/frivolous space.

But I don't want to penalize good people with fair concerns, nor reward crap developers, because they manage to tick one box of desirability.
 
Northern Light said:
But I don't want to penalize good people with fair concerns, nor reward crap developers, because they manage to tick one box of desirability.
Click to expand...
Honestly, when it comes to 3rd Party appeals like this one, or 80 DALE, or Modular Housing, or Garden Suites, etc --- the ratio of "good people with fair concerns" is very low... and the cost/risk to them of filing any frivolous & specious appeal is also laughably low...

The barrier-to-appeal (and the risk of losing) should be much higher when it comes to 3rd Party appeals, especially those that are delivering on new Affordable-Housing with City/CMHC Support.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1503072283820277760
 
Northern Light said:
I favour tightening rules around grounds for appeal, so as to eliminate more frivolous complaints that just waste everyone's time.
Click to expand...
Yeah, pearl-clutching should be one of those reasons eliminated. Just saying.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top