“We’re strongly opposed,” said Edward Leman. He’s the co-chair of the planning and zoning committee of the Annex Residents’ Association, which along with the city is a party at the OMB for this file. “We didn’t want a massive dense student residence in the Annex.”

“Intensification along the subway makes sense for the city as a whole,” said Burchell, “but it has to be managed properly. The developer [of 316 Bloor St. W.] has failed to engage the community meaningfully with respect to its plans.”

http://gleanernews.ca/index.php/201...y-battles-back-with-block-study/#.V8SPQDXUX5w

---

How the city has properly managed high rise developments at the nexus of two subway lines in other parts of the city: high rises.

The smaller units here will definitely be for students. I think this could take pressure off of larger units in the rest of the Annex so families aren't competing for students in the large units because not enough small units exist.
 
I hate how subways are constantly being used on the forums to rationalize overbuilding of sites. That is not necessarily targeted at this development although, on the surface, I would say this is representative of overbuilding within the neighbourhood context. High rises are a vague description of managing density as the term applies to a building of 10 as well as one of 75 storeys.
 
This was recently resubmitted. Same height but, big surprise, the playful green squares have been removed.

viewSupportingDoc (1)_Page_2.jpg
 

Attachments

  • viewSupportingDoc (1)_Page_2.jpg
    viewSupportingDoc (1)_Page_2.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 985
How can anyone look at this and say this is appropriate? Even in the context of two subway lines this tower is far larger than anything else for blocks around. Mid-term it could become appropriate if some 15-25 storey buildings were built around Spadina station and this one became a local peak but there's no way this can be seen as anything except completely out of context. You don't start with 40 storeys, you build up towards it...
 
Not necessarily disputing this, but why does one work towards it? Is this a fundamental rule that city planning students learn in their first lecture? It certainly does not seem as though other cities or even other parts of the GTA follow this rule.

I am sad to see the green squares go. Though I imagine that must be a relief to many.
 
I live in the neighbourhood, and support 30-40 floors near this intersection, although only mid-rises (5-7 floors) should be selectively allowed between Spadina and Bathurst (the Honest Eds site can accomodate 20-30 floors). There is a huge demand for all kind of housing and this area, but not much has been much built. If we can't build 30-40 floor highrises here at major intermodal transit points, where should we then? True Bloor is not as wide as some avenues, but similarly tall buildings are being built along similar streets/avenues in the city (Wellesley, Adelaide, Richmond, King). The entire Bloor-Danforth Subway line needs added density at the major intersections near subway stations. Tall building don't just block the sun -- they often provide bounced light that can be very pleasant. We can protect the low-density single-family homes and mansions of the Annex better if we can build higher density along the major streets in the area.
 
If this summer has taught me anything, it's that people tend to choose walking on the shaded side of a street.

Now that the green squares are removed I hope this gets rejected. Not because of the height. But because I hate when developers offer up pretty renders to get people interested and then cheap out last minute after they get sales of approvals from the city.
 
stjames2queenwest said:
Not necessarily disputing this, but why does one work towards it? Is this a fundamental rule that city planning students learn in their first lecture? It certainly does not seem as though other cities or even other parts of the GTA follow this rule.

I am sad to see the green squares go. Though I imagine that must be a relief to many.
Click to expand...

Not every single corner of the vast downtown area is going to be redefined by 40 storey towers. It makes sense to build up to a height given a neighbourhood's context. Most cities do have height and/or density limits in neighbourhoods equivilant to the Annex. That said, height is secondary to the density proposed here. It's an extruded 40 storey mass with high lot coverage. It's too much even at 30 storeys however 30 could work with the right setbacks and stepbacks.

There's nothing pretty about those renderings either.
 
I've lived in the area for some time and I don't really see an issue here either. I'd rather see future density concentrated along Bloor, Spadina, Dupont, etc. and leave the inner neighbourhoods and their historic homes untouched. Although 40 stories is probably a bit much.

The design of this tower is a separate issue though, and I don't care for it.
 
Some members are treating density like it's an on or off switch. It's not, it's on a dimmer, and this is not the place to dial it up this high. There's nothing close to this density, close to this.

Something a couple storeys taller than adjacent Tartu College would work just fine because you're still within the realm of precedence for the area, while leaving it able to be turned up still one more notch (another few floors higher) for something right at the corner at Spadina should it be redeveloped. With the subway at Spadina, intensification policy suggests that a height peak should there, not east of it.

42 storeys at the end of the block would trigger 50 storeys at Spadina, and would also put enormous pressure on the stretch between Spadina and Bathurst, making it very difficult to protect that charming shopping and restaurant strip. We need to recognize, protect, and promote the parts of Toronto that make it great, and stopping overdevelopment of nearby property is vital to that.

42
 
P23 said:
We need to recognize, protect, and promote the parts of Toronto that make it great, and stopping overdevelopment of nearby property is vital to that.

42
Click to expand...
Although i find that 42 storeys is way too tall and should be around 20-25s, i don't think there's much that people and the city can do to protect this so called "charming shopping and restaurant strip
At the pace Toronto is growing, in 50 years most of those mediocre buildings would have reached their lifespan,

Landlords aren't into spending tons of money on facades, interiors, and infrastructure of old buildings, and eventually developers will buy and build low/mid rises all the way to Lansdowne
Its already happening on Dundas and College streets west, and rumour has that developers are fetching real estate on those 2 streets at a record pace
what makes Bloor street any different?.........i don't see anyone stopping it
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top