Northern Light said:
You called that one.

***

The list above isn't ranked in order of priority. It doesn't work that way. They are following the report template. Items not listed in the format go at the end.

Building height/massing etc always come first, because that's the way the application reports are structured.

If you look at the Planning Report (application), you'll see the order is structured exactly the same way. The Planner has no discretion. It makes it easier when you're reading the report to match A to A and B to B.
Click to expand...
I promise you, if you give humans any list in a FIXED order or pattern (that repeats over and over, from report to report) even without it “officially” a ranking of Priorities —— the Individuals will heuristically treat it as a HIERARCHICAL order of Priorities and allocate the Institution’s resources and policy-enforcement accordingly.
 
HousingNowTO said:
I promise you, if you give humans any list in a FIXED order or pattern (that repeats over and over, from report to report) even without it “officially” a ranking of Priorities —— the Individuals will heuristically treat it as a HIERARCHICAL order of Priorities and allocate the Institution’s resources and policy-enforcement accordingly.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons to like @HousingNowTO but do you need a better one than he knows how to properly reference heuristics in a sentence?
 
allengeorge said:
I thought terracing was no longer a thing - or at least no longer required?
Click to expand...

Terracing and angular plane may look similar, but they are not the same. (the former is a common response to the latter)

Angular plane draws a line off the top of the building and says you can build only out to this angle, generally predicated on the width of a road, or a distance to a neighbour's property.

This is not that.

This is a property directly abutting a public park and on its southern flank.

This is an attempt to minimize shadowing on the park, and it does a good job of that.
 
I wonder why the developer opted for a terrace instead of a smaller vertical building on top of the full-size base. Presumably the latter would be cheaper? Still shadows, I assume? I’ll take a look at the drawings; there’s probably a rationale there.
 
They are likely going with apartment neighbourhoods here as there isn't any retail. Switching neighbourhoods to apartment neighbourhoods is seen as a smaller, more manageable change than to mixed use and is more likely to be accepted by the city, and if you don't have commercial uses proposed, you don't need the mixed use designation anyway.
 
allengeorge said:
I wonder why the developer opted for a terrace instead of a smaller vertical building on top of the full-size base. Presumably the latter would be cheaper? Still shadows, I assume? I’ll take a look at the drawings; there’s probably a rationale there.
Click to expand...
Assume that large rental apartments with terraced balconies facing a "protected space" - the Park... will generate higher-rents on the Market-Units, and make the math work better.
 
allengeorge said:
I wonder why the developer opted for a terrace instead of a smaller vertical building on top of the full-size base. Presumably the latter would be cheaper? Still shadows, I assume? I’ll take a look at the drawings; there’s probably a rationale there.
Click to expand...

@HousingNowTO is spot on.

But to add detail, the building is already fully built out up to 4s, only the top 3 are terraced, and the setbacks aren't super-deep.

Dropping the building to say 5-floors at full build out would represent a negative return on buildable ft2.
 
Last edited:
New rendering was taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning. The height changed from 24.46m & 14.80m to 24.07m & 23.33m. Units count changed from 130 units to 227 units. Finally, the total bike parking increased from 143 bike parking to 251 bike parking.
 
Really great resolution with the two developments merging for a overall greater density in this lot. Hope it sets a precedent in the area for easier 5+ story buildings
 
So, this one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of TEYCC.


***

Important to note here, the applicant appealed back in May, prior to the resubmission.

In the above report, it is clear that the City is still reviewing the resubmission and the opposition is pro forma pending that work.

For the most part, my read is that the City doesn't have huge issues w/this, subject to the Shadow study not delivering any negative surprises.

However, it does look like the City would like some further tweaks.

I think this one looks pretty good, and I would be annoyed if the City dithered too much.

That said, I think it's understandable that the City needs time to review all the materials, and must go through the motions until it has completed that work.
 
Request for Direction Report, the substance of which is confidential is headed to the next meeting of City Council:

Agenda Item History 2024.CC14.6

Agenda Item History 2024.CC14.6
secure.toronto.ca

Looks like a settlement offer.
 
Happy Family Day UT..............

The above was a Settlement Offer and it was adopted by Council and the details are now public.

Settlement Offer here:


The revisions here are quite extensive, regrettably, with no new render.

@Paclo is flagged for the Database updates.

I'll copy/paste a good chunk of the above; but a bit out of order, as @HousingNowTO will want to make note of this:

1708355716485.png


***

1708355740762.png

1708355778237.png


* pause * Ahem....the City is forcing the proponent to build the sidewalk out of concrete rather than interlock.............'scuse me while I throw something.

1708355860219.png


1708355877666.png

1708355899238.png


^^^ This bit I like, sensible expanding an under-sized park, one that's almost invisible, largely between 2 laneways and giving it a more substantial footprint and facing, along a street.

New Arch. Docs are here:


From the above:

Revised Site Plan:

1708356006199.png


Revised Ground Floor Plan :

1708356104643.png


Building section:


1708356151062.png

North Elevation:

1708356246568.png


I will hope and trust this is still an attractive material palate overall; ..... looking at the above, I don't think breaking up the balconies was the right idea at all. Its made them less functional for tenants, its cluttery/messy, and I don't think it actually breaks up the massing at all. I rarely use the word dumb in respect of a Planning dept ask..........but sorry..........this is one of those.
 
Last edited:
6 x basement studios for 25-years at approx. ~812 per month (inflation adjusted).

Expect to see more of this kind of settlement - w/ fewer & smaller units for a shorter period of time at a deeper level of affordability under OPA 558.

LINK - https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...nitiatives/definitions-of-affordable-housing/

More units, larger units for longer-period --- at a higher-rent to the owner --- is a better policy, but it would require more direct rent-subsidies from the government to cover the spread for the tenants.
1708431356408.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top