concrete_and_light

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
647
Reaction score
1,922
City:
Toronto
I'll probably get blasted for suggesting lower density, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the Danforth lined with towers. It seems better suited to the midrise density of Toronto's "avenues" approach. It's ripe for renewal though, with the exception of a few higher quality heritage buildings, it's actually one of the uglier main drags in the city. Lots of non-descript buildings and far too much EIFS.
I definitely don't want Danforth lined with towers, but I think the Ontario Line station here is a key factor and a node developing around Pape makes sense. A major subway interchange should become more high density and likely would inevitably in time anyway. Trying to hold it back is just fighting the tide and is holding back density from major transit infrastructure in a counterproductive way I think.

I see it similar to the tower cluster that exists/will develop further at Dundas & Bloor, but having two subway lines underneath is even more of a node in some ways. Similarly I support the tower nodes at Bloor/Bathurst and Bloor/Dufferin — we need that intensification and it's way overdue — but if we lose fine-grain small-business friendly Bloordale/Bloorcourt, etc. and all along Bloor Street through copy-paste tower proposals with Shoppers Drug Marts, banks, and such, that would be a real loss.

I think what's important is that City/community efforts recognize this reality and then focus on creating a proactive plan to intensify but not over-intensify the areas between these nodes and not just get caught up in fighting it. And in particular account for preserving fine-grain streetscape and small businesses along this stretch (and also along Bloor in the west). Density at Pape and Danforth makes sense, but if we lose the vibrancy of fine-grained Danforth or Bloor streetscapes because everything ends up opposed by the City and in appeal and then approved anyway in a way that's hostile to the street and the vibrancy of the area then that's not good.
 
Last edited:

Mihairokov

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 12, 2021
Messages
27
Reaction score
115
The height is fine here; I think the proposal itself needs some material refinement.
Agreed.
Chester will not see this kind of height, and I'm not sold that it should. I like the charm of 'Carrot Common'. There's certainly room to add density in that vicinity, don't get me wrong.......but a wall of 40-storey towers I could do without at that particular spot.
I was moreso referring to
1) Chester Station being flanked by surface parking
2) Chester Station receiving a new station building despite being across from the existing building and not being the ground floor of what should have been a mixed-use low-to-mid rise build. They built a new subway entrance next to the existing subway entrance and called it a day. Inexcusable, IMO. The new entrance should be fronting Arundel.

Broadview, on the other hand, has one corner in particular, the north-west, that has lots of potential, though the current use as a seniors residence would require some sensitivity.
The SW corner of Broadview/Danforth is the first that should be redeveloped, similar to how the Loblaws down the street will be redeveloped. Add ten storeys onto the Pizza Pizza.
I'll probably get blasted for suggesting lower density, but I'm not sure I like the idea of the Danforth lined with towers. It seems better suited to the midrise density of Toronto's "avenues" approach. It's ripe for renewal though, with the exception of a few higher quality heritage buildings, it's actually one of the uglier main drags in the city. Lots of non-descript buildings and far too much EIFS.
This proposal makes me think that they're starting at 49s in order to accept a 20s final proposal. Start tall at an infeasible height, let them whittle you down to the height you actually want and intend to build as a 'concession'.

The proposal adds 1.8M to the sidewalk along Pape. Which would bring it to 4.5M. I would argue there is a case for some further width here in light of the projected density.
An aside, and I haven't looked at any plans recently, but the NE corner of Broadview sorely needs to be expanded. It's too narrow at the intersection in front of the CIBC.
 

Lenser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
3,134
Reaction score
3,742
City:
Toronto
Wow, that's mind-blowing. Yeah, a lot of locals will be breaking out their pitchforks and torches. Maybe even a convoy or two. As for the tower itself, it has a kind of anonymous modernity to it that's neither fetching nor offensive. It's not great but it could be far worse.
 

mjl08

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
3,713
Reaction score
2,003
I guess these 10 blocks of the Danforth are where the policies of the past and future are going to collide and play out. These 49 stories are proposed only 8 blocks from Playter, where the residents stopped a modest development to preserve a useless, postage stamp-sized parking lot and where large suburban-style LCBO and Shoppers were built without any added density. A strong mayor system would allow 49 stories to happen anywhere and resident opposition would be eliminated. Hope the Playter residents enjoy their parking lot.

Yes, the one story Shoppers and LCBO by Broadview is bonkers. Both would have been great spots for a mid-rise. The former councillor didn't want to kick up a fight with the moneyed Playter Estates residents.
 

Steve Munro

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
155
Over at Broadview there is a 35-storey tower proposed on the Loblaw's site: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2021/0...velopment-broadview-and-danforth-loblaws-site . This will probably trigger interest in the SW corner at Danforth which is a collection of old buildings on a wedge of land between Broadview and Royal Drive (the Danforth to DVP connection road that was once Don Mills Road's route into the valley). I wouldn't hold my breath for the senior's building on the NW corner to go, but there are privately owned low rise apartments and then a row of stores to the north directly across from Broadview Station immediately north. The east side of Broadview/Danforth is problematic because of heritage buildings, but not beyond possibility.
 

Steve Munro

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 30, 2021
Messages
28
Reaction score
155
Yes, the one story Shoppers and LCBO by Broadview is bonkers. Both would have been great spots for a mid-rise. The former councillor didn't want to kick up a fight with the moneyed Playter Estates residents.
Both of those are typical "throwaway" buildings that just keep the site warm pending redevelopment when circumstances are favourable. See also the LCBO on the SE corner of King/Spadina.
 

myself

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 29, 2021
Messages
69
Reaction score
266
Yes, the one story Shoppers and LCBO by Broadview is bonkers. Both would have been great spots for a mid-rise. The former councillor didn't want to kick up a fight with the moneyed Playter Estates residents.
Those one storey dollaramas too, along bloor in the annex and the one near pape here are such a waste
 

egotrippin

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 8, 2007
Messages
2,485
Reaction score
1,138
A lot of good points, and it does seem that they're aiming high with the reality ending up much shorter. I'd be less opposed to more height here taking into account that it's poised to become a transit hub, provided it doesn't set a precedent elsewhere along the Danforth; a taller node as Northern Light suggested.

Moving on from there though the design is bland and unforgettable, hopefully it will go through a lot (like a lot) of refinement.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,345
Agreed.

I was moreso referring to
1) Chester Station being flanked by surface parking

The surface parking at the rear (west) of Chester Station is part of the Carrot Common complex and includes loading functions for the Big Carrot.

The parking to the east (across the street) is City owned, sitting over the subway tunnel.

2) Chester Station receiving a new station building despite being across from the existing building and not being the ground floor of what should have been a mixed-use low-to-mid rise build. They built a new subway entrance next to the existing subway entrance and called it a day. Inexcusable, IMO. The new entrance should be fronting Arundel.

I would have liked to see the entrance from Arundel as well, that was considered, but that spot would have necessitated moving the ventilation shafts for the station, and that was
deemed too expensive/out of scope.

The City's pencilled in plan for the parking lot is parkland.

Aside from greening the area, Planning sees the park function as a buffer between greater height on Danforth and the SFH on the north side of the parking lot.

The SW corner of Broadview/Danforth is the first that should be redeveloped, similar to how the Loblaws down the street will be redeveloped. Add ten storeys onto the Pizza Pizza.

Nice thought, but I don't believe there is a viable development there.

The reason is simple, the ramp for the DVP is actually an old creek bed, and is a TRCA-regulated valley/slope.

Loblaws is already in a fight w/the TRCA over its proposed encroachment in the 10M buffer zone and the slope itself, something the TRCA really opposes.

In the case of the residual parcels, if you look at the top of the slope line, assuming it were stable, and then find the line for the setback/buffer (10M), the site at the corner would literally be only a few metres wide.

This is a very crude approximation of the site, adjusted for the 10M buffer, if all of those properties were assembled:

1661366526703.png


That gives you about 10,000ft2 to play with; which is borderline viable............

But....there's no way you can build-up on that site without widening the sidewalks on Broadview. Conceding even 1M drops the site size to a hair under 9,000ft2

And I think 2M is a likely ask. That also doesn't account for any pressure to retain the nice tree in the rear of this (potential) assembly:

1661366705273.png




An aside, and I haven't looked at any plans recently, but the NE corner of Broadview sorely needs to be expanded. It's too narrow at the intersection in front of the CIBC.

While I concur that would be ideal, It would be very challenging to do w/the heritage building on the corner. That said, there are 3 vehicle lanes approaching the intersection the from the east, I think a case can be made that 2 is sufficient, and that would afford some of the necessary room.
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,345
A look at the other intersection corners:

S/E:

1661367534346.png


Corner building is heritage listed, but not designated; I would anticipate facade retention being required. But the assembly shown above would be an attractive size/shape.

Size is ~19000ft2

N/W corner (Seniors residence)


1661367727754.png


Size: somewhere about 36,000ft2.

The limiting factor here is the the site is not wide; and with SFH to the north, there is virtually no way to adhere to the angular plane and transition downwards.

I'll skip the N/E corner due to intact heritage and the fact that if it came into play, the land would most likely be needed, in part, for expansion of Broadview Station.

****

Perhaps at this juncture, I might suggest that we are wandering a bit far from the actual development site in question and we might want to get back to that.
 
Last edited:

mjl08

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 13, 2008
Messages
3,713
Reaction score
2,003
At look at the other intersection corners:

S/E:

View attachment 422413

Corner building is heritage listed, but not designated; I would anticipate facade retention being required. But the assembly shown above would be an attractive size/shape.

Size is ~19000ft2

I always disliked the shoddy fourth story addition.

1661373617614.png

Source
 

flonicky

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 16, 2011
Messages
308
Reaction score
586
Can you help me understand what about a tall building full of homes, in a City and beside an interchange subway station, leads you to this conclusion and language? Serious question. It is because it is ....... tall?
Because I think the scale and context of the existing city fabric deserve some basic consideration, even if city policies and 'the numbers' driving business decisions don't support that. The frustration in my post is at the leap from low density to one of the tallest buildings in the city instead of having the area intensify more gradually over time.
 

Ward14-Danforth

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2019
Messages
39
Reaction score
50
Because I think the scale and context of the existing city fabric deserve some basic consideration, even if city policies and 'the numbers' driving business decisions don't support that. The frustration in my post is at the leap from low density to one of the tallest buildings in the city instead of having the area intensify more gradually over time.
Unfortunately, the City's planning policies don't allow for intensification along the Danforth. Sure we can talk about mid-rise but when 2-storey storefronts are more valuable in their current form than a part of an assembly for an 8-storey building nothing will get built and the neighbourhood's population declines and stores close. This is seen in the fact that Danforth has a declining population since 1975.

If the City allowed mid-rise everywhere including in the neighbourhoods adjacent to the Danforth then yes we can talk about preserving Danforth as the main historic high street. But the city would prefer redeveloping its avenues than intensifying its neighbourhoods.
 

Top