[HousingNowTO]

From the AIC application details - "126,160 square metres of residential uses, of which 6,308 square metres is proposed to be affordable rental"

Only a 5% GFA commitment to Affordable Housing..? I can't see Councillor Bailao letting them get away with such a low number considering the size of the overall development and the various incentives that are available to generate more Affordable-Rental units within these kinds of developments, and her role as Chair of P&H.

 

[innsertnamehere]

From the AIC application details - "126,160 square metres of residential uses, of which 6,308 square metres is proposed to be affordable rental"

Only a 5% GFA commitment to Affordable Housing..? I can't see Councillor Bailao letting them get away with such a low number considering the size of the overall development and the various incentives that are available to generate more Affordable-Rental units within these kinds of developments, and her role as Chair of P&H.

It's a private development, they have no obligation to provide any at this point beyond what can be paid for through the Section 37 negotiation.

 

[HousingNowTO]

It's a private development, they have no obligation to provide any at this point beyond what can be paid for through the Section 37 negotiation.

Correct. Every site is a negotiation, and Section-37 is only 1 part of that "haggle". I would expect "more affordable rental" to be part of the City's ask - especially if they can bring a Not-for-Profit partner and some Federal dollars to the table.

 

[RickyBobby]

Diamond usually does the old "Zone and Flip" so I am not confident this is what will get built - but I love the central iconic tower.

 

[interchange42]

Diamond usually does the old "Zone and Flip" so I am not confident this is what will get built - but I love the central iconic tower.

…but sometimes they do the zone, bring on partners, provide financial support, sell to partners near the end of the project, like as The Well… so you never know.

42

 

[Northern Light]

The City has one of their omnibus reports on Employment Lands Conversion Requests on next week's Planning and Housing Ctte agenda.

One site covered is this one.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-227773.pdf

In that report the City recommends conversion, but with some strings attached........

That made me go back and look the Planning Rationale Report to see what the Employment Gross floor area is in the application:

Insofar as we allow non-residential GFA to be the comparable number, the City is looking to require an extra 2,600m2 or about 40% more than the original app.

 

[HousingNowTO]

That made me go back and look the Planning Rationale Report to see what the Employment Gross floor area is in the application:

View attachment 410104

From these project-stats this looks like essentially a 5% of residential units deal, which is an "Inclusionary-Zoning" like number -- depending on Unit-Size / Unit-Mix the City demands, they get around ~100 affordable rental units.

 

[artyboy123]

No new rendering has been updated in the database. There are some information changes taken via the architectural plan via Rezoning submission. The total unit count was reduced from 1888 units to 1882 units. Finally, car parking was reduced from 1056 parking to 950 parking.

 

[ap70]

So the Gym will be removed or relocated?

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Apologies for the thread bump, was in the area so took these of what the site looks like from Keele presently (and probably will remain for the foreseeable future, or at least until the development application sign has a few more tags):

 

[Northern Light]

This one is the subject of a new (re) submission to the AIC.

Very similar to the last incarnation, but with the employment use slashed and a few other tweaks: Notably, the 'affordable housing' term drops from 99 years to 25 years.

@HousingNowTO

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

From the above:

Renders Included:

And this one..........err....two............ @Paclo will get you a consolidated version....

Brief Comments:

- Lower levels of employment use........AND a 75% cut to the term of the 'Affordable' housing which is only targeted to 100% of AMR? That seems a tad one-sided........

- The Park was problematic before......the siting here looks good until you realize this park will be in perpetual shadow most of the year. (I reviewed their shadow studies to be sure).

 

[HousingNowTO]

This one is the subject of a new (re) submission to the AIC.

Very similar to the last incarnation, but with the employment use slashed and a few other tweaks: Notably, the 'affordable housing' term drops from 99 years to 25 years.

@HousingNowTO

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

From the above:

View attachment 607847
View attachment 607848
View attachment 607849

View attachment 607850


View attachment 607851
View attachment 607852

View attachment 607853
Renders Included:

View attachment 607855

View attachment 607856

View attachment 607858

And this one..........err....two............ @Paclo will get you a consolidated version....


View attachment 607860
View attachment 607859


Brief Comments:

- Lower levels of employment use........AND a 75% cut to the term of the 'Affordable' housing which is only targeted to 100% of AMR? That seems a tad one-sided........

- The Park was problematic before......the siting here looks good until you realize this park will be in perpetual shadow most of the year. (I reviewed their shadow studies to be sure).

Hmmm…? Willl need to look into this one some more.

 

[AMOR]

does anyone know if these tracks are still in use?

it would be great if this development could contribute to the east-west and north-south links between these neighbourhoods.

 

[rbt]

does anyone know if these tracks are still in use?
View attachment 608173
it would be great if this development could contribute to the east-west and north-south links between these neighbourhoods.

The East->South and North->West curves (both lower left) have a number of daily GO trains.

The West->North and East->North curves are CPs only track to/from western Canada (via Sudbury) which does not go through USA (via Chicago), so I expect they get used several times per day as well.

 

[christiesplits]

Overall, I'm supportive of the proposal. Solid density, new affordable housing and a much better use of the site than a big box gym.

Having said that, I hope future residents brace for the brutal traffic congestion at Keele and Dundas during rush hour, and I don't use the word brutal loosely.