dt_toronto_geek said:
So it's about 40' of difference, a considerably amount of additional shadowing to those who live in the very expensive homes to the north of this location. Me, I'm honestly not opposed to 29 stories here at all - heck, make it higher, but I know the neighbourhood and they ain't gonna' like it.
With this project moving forward presumably the legal issues between this and the property to the west (40 Wellesley E.) have been settled so that will likely move forward in the next year or so which means two new additional tower proposals soon, not just the one at 50 Wellesley E. so these will only increase the wrath of residents to the north.
In the end "22 Wellesley" (east) is 23 storeys so maybe 29 stories here will fly. Time will tell.
Click to expand...


what were the "legal issues" between this site and 40? can you brief us dt? i wasn't aware. thanks.
 
These problems go back to 2005 & 2006, way before the St. John's Ambulance building was demolished at 50 Wellesley (previously referred to as 46 Wellesley). First there was a problem with the 40 Wellesley proposal and the amount of space between 22 Wellesley and the proposed tower at 40 Wellesley, they didn't meet the space guideline between the two buildings so they were fighting the City or the OMB over that (22 Wellesley has east facing windows which would be blocked by the new proposed tower with less than 5.5m of space, as proposed). The other issue I found and copied is: "The applicant also filed an appeal to the OMB concerning the approved development at 46 Wellesley Street East [edit: now known as 50 Wellesley E]. The issue was the westerly side yard setback of 46 Wellesley Street East from the property line shared with 40 Wellesley Street East. The applicant also filed an appeal to the OMB to consolidate these two appeals". If memory serves the other issues were some kind of problem with foundations being so close, underground parking between the two owners of 40 & 50 Wellesley E. and right-of-ways, plus of course there were height and massing issues with the City for both proposals. Lots of problems.

That's what I recall, and what I could find. If you go waaaay back you'll find another thread or two with all this information, not sure what the names of the threads are though.

For those not familiar with the area, below is Wellesley St. E. of Yonge. In red is 22 Wellesley, completed about 4 years ago, to the left of that is the Wellesley subway station (with pool & tennis courts on it's roof that serve the 15 Dundonald St. apartments). In light blue is the 40 Wellesley St. property, currently an empty 4 storey building with a small variety store & pharmacy at ground level and in orange is the 50 Wellesley St. E property, formally the St. John's ambulance building which was demolished in September of 2007.

well.jpg


Google Earth facing west showing the 50 Wellesley St. lot in the foreground, the 40 Wellesley 4-storey building and finally beyond, the completed 22 Wellesley condominium.

well2.jpg
 
Last edited:
If 40 and 50 Wellesley get built in the 28-30 storey range I think that makes it even more likely that the Green P lot on the south side will get built in the 40-45 storey range. A taller tower on the south side of the street would cast as much shadow as shorter towers on the north side
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
These problems go back to 2005 & 2006, way before the St. John's Ambulance building was demolished at 50 Wellesley (previously referred to as 46 Wellesley). First there was a problem with the 40 Wellesley proposal and the amount of space between 22 Wellesley and the proposed tower at 40 Wellesley, they didn't meet the space guideline between the two buildings so they were fighting the City or the OMB over that (22 Wellesley has east facing windows which would be blocked by the new proposed tower with less than 5.5m of space, as proposed). The other issue I found and copied, here it is: "The applicant also filed an appeal to the OMB concerning the approved development at 46 Wellesley Street East [edit: now known as 50 Wellesley E]. The issue was the westerly side yard setback of 46 Wellesley Street East from the property line shared with 40 Wellesley Street East. The applicant also filed an appeal to the OMB to consolidate these two appeals".
well2.jpg
Click to expand...


good point re: the 5.5 metre side yard setback. if the 50 wellesley proposal was less than 5.5m from the 40 wellesley property line then i could see how this would have been an issue. makes you wonder why they didn't just increase the setback to 5.5m though to save themselves the legal headache.

thanks for the clarification!
 
Whoa. Interesting. It would be good if they could combine this property with the one to the south, incorporate the houses on Dundonald, and do a "context king west" over here.
 
The community may not take too lightly a condo built on a mostly low-rise residential side street.
 
I'd rather see them be going after the existing high-rise immediately to the east of this parcel, than be threatening those houses. That high rise could use some serious development around it's base to mitigate it's bleak, street-deadening nature.

I'd be sad to see these houses go. Dundonald is a lovely little street, with a wee bend in it that adds to it's charm. Like a lot of the treed, low-rise residential streets between Yonge and Church, it really helps calm the gritty chaos that Yonge seems to carry along itself.
 
Um, why? The only choice Toronto has to accommodate the steady influx of new residents is intensification, and replacing a handful of houses with a midrise condo building does just that. Or are all houses in Toronto now to be considered untouchable?
 
These four homes have been pretty well maintained, at least on the outside. Dundonald is definitely a charming street.

It's not a terribly wide street. I would imagine the ideal 45 degree angular plane up from street level would give us fewer than 18s.
 
Well, it's not unforeseeable, but it is a bit sad. As long as there are surface parking lots, brownfields, genuinely decrepit properties and ugly modern buildings in need of reworking, it'd be good to see those go first.
I can understand why this is a juicy spot for a developer, but it won't do much for those of us who like to stroll down the street because it's peaceful and intimate, or because it offers a glimpse of another Toronto. Of course the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few...!
 
Mongo said:
Um, why? The only choice Toronto has to accommodate the steady influx of new residents is intensification, and replacing a handful of houses with a midrise condo building does just that. Or are all houses in Toronto now to be considered untouchable?
Click to expand...

Are there not enough empty lots & buldings that are falling apart in the area that can be used first?

Greenleaf, I have been inside one of the houses last year, and it is was very well maintained inside.
 
Dundonald should be rezoned for commercial. More B&Bs, cafe's, shops etc. It could be like a gay version of Yorkville
 
UF:

Not saying it is a bad idea but is the demand there necessarily? You have two strips (Church-Wellesley; Yonge) that aren't doing that well...

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top