junctionist said:
That sounds like conjecture. People build around mature trees all the time.
Click to expand...
I dunno, sounds more like someone who knows what they're talking about. How would you shore around those trees? Remember the rule of thumb is that a tree is often as large, if not larger, below grade than above.
 
junctionist said:
Also, I'd save the mature trees along the road regardless of what happens.
Click to expand...

I love the sentiment.

It's one with which I generally sympathize.

But....

In this case.............

All 3 of trees are non-native, invasives.

2 Norway Maples. One with a really odd form..... a Schwedler Norway Maple.

While the other is a European Linden.

ProjectEnd said:
I dunno, sounds more like someone who knows what they're talking about. How would you shore around those trees? Remember the rule of thumb is that a tree is often as large, if not larger, below grade than above.
Click to expand...

Isn't that question moot if all trees are clearly on City property?

The pink line marks the edge of private ownership, all of the trees are within the municipal ROW.

1606427889814.png
 
That certainly would make things more complicated for Marlin Spring (no problem there!). On the one hand, the City loves saving essentially every mature tree, but on the other, these are non-native and invasive (as you note). I did a project which had offsite trees in close proximity to the shoring line and Urban Forestry certainly made it difficult for us (though we eventually did construct it with heavy arborist monitoring).

So. Many. Trips. To. 50 Booth...
 
There's nothing necessarily wrong with buying up a block of houses to redevelop them if there are no heritage concerns. It's definitely something we're going to have to see more often as the city becomes more metropolitan to address housing affordability issues.

But you have to make sure the replacement buildings develop on the strengths of the neighbourhood and feel special. Also, there has to be a mix of housing sizes to allow for diversity of residents from different walks of life, especially with the loss of single family housing. There shouldn't be more 1950s public housing-style replacement of historic urban fabric with austere and disconnected Modern buildings that sterilize and deaden the block.
 
Last edited:
Would this be considered an example of breaking the Yellow Belt? If so, it would be significantly precedent setting...
 
An Online Community Meeting on January 11, 2020? Why can't it be in person? It's not like we're under some kind of quarantine or anything, right?
 
Towered said:
Would this be considered an example of breaking the Yellow Belt? If so, it would be significantly precedent setting...
Click to expand...

Proposing to replace a block of semi-detached housing with a substantial increase in density, I'd definitely consider that to be yellow belt intensification.

Aiming for an initial target of 28 storeys does seem to be on the ambitious side though, so I'm curious to see what's being planned here.
 
AlbertC said:
Aiming for an initial target of 28 storeys does seem to be on the ambitious side though, so I'm curious to see what's being planned here.
Click to expand...

It definitely is pretty significant. For comparison, 299 Campbell now under construction and basically just across the street is 14 storeys. On the other hand, across the tracks to the east the Fuse buildings are 27 and 23 storeys. And a little further on, the Galleria buildings will be considerably taller than that. So in that respect perhaps this is not as out of context as it first might seem. It does however of course seem more surprising and against the norm because this is a redevelopment of a swath of houses and there is nothing close to this height within the Junction Triangle itself.

I live very near to here, so I'm watching this closely and with interest. In general I think there should be a significantly more proactive progressive approach to rezoning or other policy to allow for and encourage missing middle intensification to be built in the Junction Triangle in a significant way. The Junction Triangle has a unique urban form for Toronto in many ways and has the bones to be an urban district more than many other areas of the city do and I think that should be fostered! In my ideal version, most of that would be mid-rise or small scale apartment buildings, etc. but, I think there could be opportunities like this that might work for more significant height as well in order to get more housing into the area. Being up near the tracks and tucked away from other low rise areas I think could make this site viable for this kind of intensification.

My bigger question now is if 28 storeys or anything close to that happens on this site, what happens next: there are *multiple* development sites around it — The plaza on Symington, the parking lot behind it, the BMO building on the corner and parking lots around that, and the industrial park on the other side of Campbell which is a significant site especially if we're now considering buildings in the 28 storey range. I'd be sad to lose that building even though it is very hostile in an anti-urban turning its back on the street kind of way, but it fosters and provides space for all sorts of small businesses and various things! So it would be sad to lose it for that kind of surprising vitality it brings to the neighbourhood but part of me feels like it is inevitable in time. Though perhaps it will be more likely to remain due to being designated employment (I presume).

Then there is of course the eternal paved over south-west corner of Dupont and Symington haha. And the East Junction Condos site (I don't remember what stage of dead or alive that project is in). What I really hope doesn't happen is for development pressure to be put on the Clock Factory building and also the warehouses north of the tracks, which also foster a lot of community vitality and accessible space for a variety of pursuits.

Which is why I think it's so important that we come up with a proactive progressive way to intensify the area! So we don't end up in a runaway situation where community hubs or the fine-grain streetscape of Dupont further west face development pressure but houses stay undisturbed.

So on the balance I'm a little skeptical but not exactly opposed to this either. I don't have hopes for the quality of the building, but I'm interested to see what it's like.
 
Last edited:
I really do like the intensification for the area (and that it leaves Boo's alone) but is it viable considering East Junction Condos' struggles? I know they're reviving that project now but that's a lot of new condos for a small area.

Also, the city/TTC is going to have to really figure out a way to make Dupont useable for public transit.
 
JohnnyRaylander said:
I really do like the intensification for the area (and that it leaves Boo's alone) but is it viable considering East Junction Condos' struggles? I know they're reviving that project now but that's a lot of new condos for a small area.

Also, the city/TTC is going to have to really figure out a way to make Dupont useable for public transit.
Click to expand...
You cannot take one developer's struggle to complete a project and declare the whole area infeasible for redevelopment; there could be any number of reasons that East Junction Condos failed that have nothing to do with the desirability of the neighbourhood.

Meanwhile, the TTC could try this on Dupont: buses arriving more frequently.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top