innsertnamehere said:
Dundas station runs pretty far north of Dundas Street. The 150m platform has the current exit in maybe the first 30 metres of the platform directly under Yonge and Dundas, and this site is about 90 metres north of the intersection. The north end of the platform likely ends right around this development.

I would have hoped that a second exit from the northbound platform would have been possible here - it would pull a lot of pedestrian traffic off of the congest yonge-dundas intersection as well.
Click to expand...
...and it would also serve Ryerson students.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Trying to do far too much? If anything, the criticisms of this are that it doesn't do enough (eg. it's 'boring').

It's also too far from the north face of Dundas Station for another entrance, unfortunately. It could be possible if the old HMV / current Tokyo Smoke building to the south is acquired, but not now.
Click to expand...
I believe the two arguments are not mutually exclusive if you break it down into nuances.

In this case, the proposed structure does:

Too Little
1.) An architectural step down from the original structure on the site.
2.) Is a missed opportunity to be more urbanistically innovative and publicly generous, considering that it's Ryerson's Yonge Street gateway.
3.) Arguably misses an opportunity to create a second Dundas subway entrance.

Too Much
1.) Seeks too much in terms of density.

As such, one could see this cynically as an investo-box development that contributes little to the local public environment while maximizing density (and profits) within the most cookie-cutter form possible.

I personally am not opposed to density on this site, but as is, the project is hardly a step up. Considering the Lalani Group's deliberate neglect of the original Empress Hotel- they'll need to work a bit harder on this, and give more back to the community.
 
Last edited:
Good point. You're right, @innsertnamehere, the platform does go further north than I'd thought. Here, the vent shaft just south of Gould extends basically to the north face of the platform (on the right):

1597942696068.png


Still to tight to do a proper exit, but closer than I'd thought.
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's also too far from the north face of Dundas Station for another entrance, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

The architectural plans show that the end of the platform nearly lines up perfectly with the basement of the plot - perfectly located for a second exit to be integrated into a future development.
The knockout panels proposed as part of this development was a bit of a cop-out - when you'd need to dig a level deeper than this basement to build a connecting tunnel underneath the subway tunnel itself. Def needs to be comprehensively designed into any future scheme, rather than an afterthought.
Screenshot 2020-08-20 at 20.05.20.png
 
I'm ok with a northbound only entrance as a part of this development and another for when Panera Bread ends up redeveloping across the street, if needed.

Dundas is such a shallow station that the platform sits essentially directly below grade on the P1 level. To access both sides of the tracks you would need a passageway underneath the tracks like exists today at the current platform entry. That's pricey for a private development to accommodate.
 
Seems like a waste. Why it needs to be the same height as the University X Student Centre escapes me.

At this point, though, with a settlement in place, the developer should go back to the City and say "We will pay to build the second entrance/exit to Dundas station (northbound only, a developer for this small site wouldn't be able to afford digging under the subway tunnel and come back up on the other side as well — for that to happen the City would have to spend the cash), if you give us X number of more floors, whatever number that would be for them to afford it and make a little more profit beyond that.

What we've got approved now makes little more sense than the food stalls there now. Likely nothing will better that crush of eateries.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Seems like a waste. Why it needs to be the same height as the University X Student Centre escapes me.

At this point, though, with a settlement in place, the developer should go back to the City and say "We will pay to build the second entrance/exit to Dundas station (northbound only, a developer for this small site wouldn't be able to afford digging under the subway tunnel and come back up on the other side as well — for that to happen the City would have to spend the cash), if you give us X number of more floors, whatever number that would be for them to afford it and make a little more profit beyond that.

What we've got approved now makes little more sense than the food stalls there now. Likely nothing will better that crush of eateries.

42
Click to expand...

They are height limited by the hospital flight path.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Not to 16st.
Click to expand...

Perhaps not; though 277 Victoria is very close, and the City is selling for market value to Ryerson, it would seem, and the concept there that has been posted appears to be 16s also.

Now it is a smidge to the south, so its restrictions could be a bit tighter.

But the City seems to be very consistent in that 16s limit in the Dundas to Gould block (Yonge to Victoria)

Is there any other reason for that of which you are aware? (sincere question, not snark)
 
no idea why the city wants 16st here - my guess is that they think this site is too small for a "tower" site and that this is a compromise "midrise" that waives the need for 25m tower separations. Lalani tied it to the SLC as the SLC was built as a "midrise" with minimal setbacks, so Lalani could argue that matching that height allows them to do minimal setbacks as well (yes, these games get tiring very quickly with the city on what is defined as a midrise or tall building, what height each set of rules kicks in at, and what rules can get bent and what rules can't).

Panda across the street got 30st or so, which is the actual flightpath limit here. It's also basically what Lalani proposed here initially. No developer tries to push a flight path limit as there is a 0% chance of avoiding it. it's one of the few Toronto planning rules which you absolutely must comply with.
 
Good answer @innsertnamehere ; ty.

****

To switch gears, I was thinking 3s here. LOL

I really object when heritage buildings mysteriously burn down and then development applications for multi-storey buildings on those sites come forward.

I would champion a law that says if you own a heritage building and it burns down, you are responsible to rebuild it precisely in accordance w/the designated characteristics and no applications will be considered until
the original building is back in place.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top