It is nuts that this area was built with single family homes years after the rest of the area was populated with apartments, and it really should be zoned as an apartment neighbourhood, but @Amare is correct in regards to it creating a precedent if the City were to rezone it (just to correct the stupidity on that particular site), and so they would be reluctant to rezone. That said, that's different than reworking the zoning for all neighbourhoods to be allowed significantly more density by allowing missing middle housing to be built in them. That should happen city-wide.

42
 
Undead said:
While we're discussing the area writ large, is there any interest from the owners of 250 Ferrand to densify their site? Looks like a healthy 4-5 acres which could be redeveloped. Assuming it's viable.
Click to expand...

250 is managed by Amexon as is 150. Not sure if they own but I wouldn't be suprised. In which case I'm sure they are thinking about it.
 
ZBA application submitted:

Development Applications

No project description available yet.

Also, from Tenblock on Twitter (possibly this proposal):

1648275093175.png
 
Description Added, still no docs:

1649229845575.png
 
Amare said:
At this rate, those homeowners north of Rochefort will be in for a handsome payday anytime soon now. If I had money i'd buy one solely just to hold onto it until a developer came along with an offer:

View attachment 374599
Click to expand...
Question for anyone - What is the actual chances of a developer coming along and buying all these townhouses up and redeveloping these lands? Would you give it a 10 year timeline or perhaps more? My only concern is the longer they wait the more valuable this land gets especially if Ontario Line is open then these townhomes will be ridiculously expensive just cause of where they are situated and plus the whole area will be gentrified within 10 years and be all new and spiffy.

I did a rough count and there are 165 townhouses there and lets say on average worth 1.5 Mil for arguments sake (probably more - but just arguments sake) Just based on that it will cost 250 million to buy up those town houses. Considering people will not want to leave and they will have to make it worth it for folks so then you are looking at 400 million pay out for that land.

I guess 400 million for that piece of land along the Ontario Line and Eglinton LRT corridor makes sense. If you look just west the Forestors building and the parking lot was bought for close to 100 million couple weeks ago. https://renx.ca/menkes-acquires-foresters-head-office-in-toronto/ and in comparison these townhomes are about 3 times that much land.
Curious to hear your thoughts...
 
Northern Light said:
It would frankly serve the City well to buy up this block here:

View attachment 374601

Its contiguous to Ferrand Drive Park, it would be large enough to support a soccer field, it hasn't yet been upzoned, which means it could probably be acquired for ~40-50M

Direct all parks funds from projects at or north of Grenoble to cover the cost.

Let the Eglinton stuff which will likely get the max densities go residential.

There is a need, as well, in my opinion to extend Ferrand *the road* south as these developments occur to improve connectivity within the community. It should at least reach Grenoble.

Oh, and someone change the name, it's really peculiar that what are really 2 different N-S streets and a connecting E-W street all have the same name!
Click to expand...
There are 75 townhomes that you have circled... The ones on Ferrand are worth 1.3-4 minimum and the ones on Seton Park/Wilket are worth minimum 1.5 mil however with the way real estate prices have gone probably more. Point being you are not going to convince these homeowners to all leave for at minimum 150 million. Thats about a 2 million average payout per town home. 150 million plus to redevelop the land into parkland is way too pricy for the city imo
 
toronto647 said:
There are 75 townhomes that you have circled... The ones on Ferrand are worth 1.3-4 minimum and the ones on Seton Park/Wilket are worth minimum 1.5 mil however with the way real estate prices have gone probably more. Point being you are not going to convince these homeowners to all leave for at minimum 150 million. Thats about a 2 million average payout per town home. 150 million plus to redevelop the land into parkland is way too pricy for the city imo
Click to expand...

I checked all the addresses, it's 45 homes that I have circled. I wasn't meaning to include the properties on Seton Park at all, excuse my drawing, I was a bit sloppy.

Using your suggested price of 1.3M each the price would be ~60M.

That said, I'm not suggesting the City raid the kitty, I'm suggesting diverting all the park land contributions that are set to occur in this area across multiple sites and direct that money to this block instead, so as get to get one park of usable size.
Those contributions, from at least 3 different developments would cover the cost of 1/2 the site minimum.
The balance would be 1/2 fundable though S.37; leaving the City on the hook for ~15M plus parkland development costs; let's 20M.
A perfectly reasonable investment. The City has 20x available for parkland acquisition.

I would add, that aside from the advantages of growing the existing undersized park in the obvious sense, my intent here was that the City would be able to remove Wilket Creek Rd in its entirely and add that back as well.

That gives the City a 1.7ha expansion of the existing park bringing the total to 2.7ha / 6.7 acre park.
 
Northern Light said:
That yellow will turn red here...........
Click to expand...
Eventually it certainly will.
Northern Light said:
I checked all the addresses, it's 45 homes that I have circled. I wasn't meaning to include the properties on Seton Park at all, excuse my drawing, I was a bit sloppy.

Using your suggested price of 1.3M each the price would be ~60M.

That said, I'm not suggesting the City raid the kitty, I'm suggesting diverting all the park land contributions that are set to occur in this area across multiple sites and direct that money to this block instead, so as get to get one park of usable size.
Those contributions, from at least 3 different developments would cover the cost of 1/2 the site minimum.
The balance would be 1/2 fundable though S.37; leaving the City on the hook for ~15M plus parkland development costs; let's 20M.
A perfectly reasonable investment. The City has 20x available for parkland acquisition.

I would add, that aside from the advantages of growing the existing undersized park in the obvious sense, my intent here was that the City would be able to remove Wilket Creek Rd in its entirely and add that back as well.

That gives the City a 1.7ha expansion of the existing park bringing the total to 2.7ha / 6.7 acre park.
Click to expand...

I went back to the image and excluded the Seaton Park ones and theres 58 townhomes in total. I would use the 1.5 mil figure (Ferrand Drive ones are 1.3 minimum) and that too will probably be higher if your trying to expropriate the whole blocks and don't really have a great reason besides building a park. 87 million in total and for every year they wait probably a 5 million increase at minimum. The closure you get to the EGWLRT and Ontario Line being completed it will just be way to expensive to expropriate / buy these townhomes.
 
* Docs are Up *

Architect is Diamond Schmitt

1649402645318.png


1649402697671.png


1649402729443.png


1649402798161.png


1649402850256.png


1649402893828.png


1649403165308.png


1649403465677.png



As I surmised in post 1 of this thread, this proposal razes the existing rental building on site.

Replacement units are proposed within the new development.

There is a parkland dedication on the westside of the site of ~7,000ft2 adjacent to existing, (not currently parkland) openspace.

The parkland dedication, though small, has some real potential here.

It is adjacent to a small patch of green with a publicly accessible trail that's actually owned by TCHC which owns the building to the north of this site and operates it as seniors housing.

Immediately to the west thereof is the parkland dedication associated with the proposal at 25 St. Dennis, which we have a thread for, here:

Metro Park Condos | 112.7m | 37s | DBS | Kirkor Architects

Some new stuff for Flemingdon Park http://www.prestonapartments.ca/apartments-for-rent/25-st-dennis-drive 25 ST DENNIS DR Ward 26 - North York District Construct a 42-storey tower-and-base building on the southern portion of the subject site, and a six-storey apartment building on the...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

From said thread:

1649405635646.png



The 2 dedications taken together would be just shy of 1800m2, while the green space, which includes driveway access to the TCHC parking lot, provides another 1800m2

Together, that's just shy of 1 acre of parkland.

To me, this logically raises the question of redeveloping both the TCHC parcel and the adjacent public library to the north.

Both functions need to be retained, however, the Library is a single-storey facility, while the TCHC site is only 7 storeys; were these in play, further contiguous parkspace could be obtained; a new,
larger library built to meet the needs of this community.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
There is a parkland dedication on the westside of the site of ~7,000ft2 adjacent to existing, (not currently parkland) openspace.

The parkland dedication, though small, has some real potential here.

It is adjacent to a small patch of green with a publicly accessible trail that's actually owned by TCHC which owns the building to the north of this site and operates it as seniors housing.

Immediately to the west thereof is the parkland dedication associated with the proposal at 25 St. Dennis, which we have a thread for, here:
Click to expand...
Combined concept from landscape set:

1649426313968.png
 
Kenojuak said:
Combined concept from landscape set:

View attachment 391224
Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

****

That driveway down the middle is a mess though; which is why I think the TCHC site and the Library site need to come into play. If that parking simply goes underground, and nothing else changed, you could add the driveway and parking space to the park creating a much more usable space.
 
The City should be eliminating the wide turn from Deauville to Grenoble, (below at lower right), and I am curious as to why that's not in play even in this initial stage of the proposal: the City should be eliminating these as anti-pedestrian measures a matter of course, including instructions on how they should be replaced whenever an adjacent site is to be redeveloped… but the lack of that says Zero Vision to me.
1649402697671-png.391190


42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top