[PMT]

This is proposed to replace the plaza at Coxwell and Gerrard:

355 COXWELL AVE
Ward 32 - Tor & E.York District
►View All Properties
Proposal for a 6 storey mixed use building containing 33 residential units, 1 retail unit at the ground level and office units on the 6th level with a gross density of 2.5 times the lot area and 9 surface parking spaces.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 16 198323 STE 32 OZ Jul 28, 2016 Under Review

Renderings:

 

[Lenser]

That dinky plaza will not be missed. On the other hand, this design doesn't look terribly inspiring.

 

[Skeezix]

The preliminary report with additional details has been released and is here.

 

[Momin]

Update: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/10/proposal-bring-affordable-housing-coxwell-and-gerrard

 

[torontologist]

Awesome! This is the kind of density we need across the city. And a co-op too!

 

[bilked]

While the present condition is an under-utilization to be sure, trading five retailers for one doesn't seem like very forward thinking for this well serviced intersection.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

While the present condition is an under-utilization to be sure, trading five retailers for one doesn't seem like very forward thinking for this well serviced intersection.

Nothing incremental redevelopment of the surrounding single detached housing to this built form won't solve. Besides from the looks of it in Google streetview the health of the existing businesses are a little questionable anyways.

AoD

 

[adHominem]

Going past on the Coxwell bus, I always imagine that the two bars in that plaza have a rivalry going on, like Cheers and Gary's Old Towne Tavern.

Anyway, this isn't the most architecturally spectacular thing, but it seems like OK infill (caveat: based on the wee little thumbnail image). I'm happy to see more density and much, much happier to see a new co-op being built.

 

[Jan Griffiths]

What does "affordable" mean precisely? If it is 80% of market rent in the area, that remains UNAFFORDABLE to many, many people residing in this neighbourhood. If actual rent supplements from the City of Toronto are not connected with this project, it will be moving housing co-ops in another direction -- away from the need for decent housing for low income households. I would also hope that a thorough environmental assessment of the site would be conducted. The site is deceptively small and the drawing is quite clever in making the project appear deeper than it actually will be. I suspect the units will be uncomfortable small.

 

[interchange42]

Looks like the typical 1 bedrooms here will be about 600 sq ft, the 2 bedrooms about 750 sq ft. studios are around 400 sq ft. Those 1 bedrooms are about 50 to 100 sq ft larger than the average size of new suites downtown now.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What does "affordable" mean precisely? If it is 80% of market rent in the area, that remains UNAFFORDABLE to many, many people residing in this neighbourhood. If actual rent supplements from the City of Toronto are not connected with this project, it will be moving housing co-ops in another direction -- away from the need for decent housing for low income households. I would also hope that a thorough environmental assessment of the site would be conducted. The site is deceptively small and the drawing is quite clever in making the project appear deeper than it actually will be. I suspect the units will be uncomfortable small.

Point 1 - even if it is 80% market, it is still increasing the housing supply and that is only a good thing.
Point 2 - why is a "through environmental assessment" beyond what is required by the city necessary? You do realize that additional burden only increase cost, thus reduce affordability? Do we really require that for what is an appropriate built form?
Point 3 - unit size is also related to affordability.

AoD

 

[vtoronto1]

What does "affordable" mean precisely? If it is 80% of market rent in the area, that remains UNAFFORDABLE to many, many people residing in this neighbourhood. If actual rent supplements from the City of Toronto are not connected with this project, it will be moving housing co-ops in another direction -- away from the need for decent housing for low income households. I would also hope that a thorough environmental assessment of the site would be conducted. The site is deceptively small and the drawing is quite clever in making the project appear deeper than it actually will be. I suspect the units will be uncomfortable small.

Jan, two thoughts come to mind from reading your comment: First, if something is going to be built here, what would you like it to be ....Extra large units subsidized extensively by taxpayers (that is where Gov't money comes from) so that rents can be far below market ? Secondly, what is your concern re environmental assessment over and above the environmental requirements of every development project ?

 

[maestro]

What does "affordable" mean precisely? If it is 80% of market rent in the area, that remains UNAFFORDABLE to many, many people residing in this neighbourhood. If actual rent supplements from the City of Toronto are not connected with this project, it will be moving housing co-ops in another direction -- away from the need for decent housing for low income households. I would also hope that a thorough environmental assessment of the site would be conducted. The site is deceptively small and the drawing is quite clever in making the project appear deeper than it actually will be. I suspect the units will be uncomfortable small.

The rendering appears accurate. It's actually a large site for what amounts to about 6 units per floor. The surface parking area doesn't present that well given it's a corner lot. It's a new building. That the developer plans to offer at 20% below market in this hot neighbourhood (on the edge of it) is pretty impressive.

 

[PMT]

Recommended for approval: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-107481.pdf

 

[PMT]