[AlbertC]

72 Amroth Avenue | CreateTO

CreateTO, together with the City of Toronto, is working to advance a Missing Middle Pilot Project that will deliver expanded housing options in Neighbourhoods-designated lands, including the site at 72 Amroth Avenue within the East Danforth community.

createto.ca

72 Amroth Avenue​

CreateTO, together with the City of Toronto, is working to advance a Missing Middle Pilot Project that will deliver expanded housing options in Neighbourhoods-designated lands, including the site at 72 Amroth Avenue within the East Danforth community.

Located on Amroth Ave, just south of Danforth, one block east of Woodbine Ave and the subway station:

 

[Northern Light]

I didn't realize we hadn't given this its own thread til now.

Background on how this came to be found in the Zoning Reform thread:

Zoning Reform Ideas

I would consider it a win if more low-rise development was shifted from the urban fringe (Caledon, etc.) to the existing built up area.

urbantoronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

We have a new, detailed concept for this site.

Before we get into that, I'll flag @Paclo to mention that it may be desirable to duplicate some of the earlier discussion from the zoning reform thread in this file for useful context.

Here's the link to new rezoning in the AIC:

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

So, here's the thing.........its SuperKul; and they've changed the concept to 6s. + ancillary buildings

Lets have a look:

Now an aerial perspective that shows the shorter ancillary buildings located in the interior of the site:

Site Plan:

Ground Floor Plan:

Upper Floor layout:

Comments: I support the idea, but there are issues here.

There appears to be only a single elevator in a 6s building. Should that elevator break/need to be replaced etc etc......do we expect someone to walk up/down 6s? How does that work for a resident with a mobility aid? To be clear, this actually complies with code, but I see it as a real problem. Having had a parent who was on a second floor, but after a stroke, and with COPD, required a mobility aid, I'm concerned about trapping people inside or outside their units.

It might be one thing to take that as a managed risk in a 3s or 4s building, but at 6s, even able-bodied people may be plaintive at having to walk up 6s regularly.

Of note, the 2 shorter buildings (3s) do not have elevators provided, they are walk-up. I think at 3s that is more reasonable, though it obviously precludes anyone with a mobility aid from even visiting said units.

**

We'll have to see what the locals have to say, but I'm a bit curious as to going to six storeys here on a side street. While quite close to Danforth, the transition to the neighbouring 2s is substantial. Its not a question of right/wrong here to me as much as how much pushback one wants to elicit on a model meant to be replicated across the city in lowrise areas. I think to get to six on this profile, one may need some setbacks above the second/third floor.

I'm not sure I like the way they massed this really, the open space at rear is curious here, it gives up a lot of ft2; you could transition to the lower height in the interior but still do one connected building; though it would require a very different interior layout. This might be easier to do well if they just bought the property to the south on Amroth, which, I grant makes this more midrise than missing middle...........but there we are.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

The material change above the second story is goofy as hell - simplify please!

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Looks like they flipped it from mainly bricks to pre-fab. Hence, the wonky mismatch we're seeing now.

 

[dgto]

Great project that could be replicated on so many small Green P lots! However, given that this is right behind Danforth Avenue and less than 200 m from Woodbine Station, this building should absolutely be 8 storeys if not taller.

I do agree that open space at the rear looks far too large and wastes valuable square footage. The floor plans here provide further evidence of how the requirement for two sets of stairs wastes so much space, lowers floor plate efficiency and results in worse unit layouts. Single-egress reform cannot come soon enough!!

 

[Northern Light]

Great project that could be replicated on so many small Green P lots! However, given that this is right behind Danforth Avenue and less than 200 m from Woodbine Station, this building should absolutely be 8 storeys if not taller.

I can't agree, its not sellable without some sort of transition. You can do 8-storeys, but you have to buy out more properties so you can transition down.

I do agree that open space at the rear looks far too large and wastes valuable square footage. The floor plans here provide further evidence of how the requirement for two sets of stairs wastes so much space, lowers floor plate efficiency and results in worse unit layouts. Single-egress reform cannot come soon enough!!

I'm open to discussion on the two points of egress, though I expect a robust fire-suppression system in exchange. But as I feel 2 elevators is essential, I think that change would take up most of the space saved by canning a second set of stairs. That's why the footprint needs to be re-thought.

If you widen the frontage on Amroth by even one property, then kibosh the weird open space and or shift it to the south (so as to have one contiguous building here) then it becomes viable to reorganize the layout and make it work.

That said, we're no longer doing 'missing middle' here, six storeys is not middle and 8 certainly is not, the original idea here was 4 storeys so that it could be replicated inside yellowbelt areas, not only at the edges.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I can't agree, its not sellable without some sort of transition. You can do 8-storeys, but you have to buy out more properties so you can transition down.

Nahhh:

 

[Northern Light]

Nahhh:
View attachment 546396

I get that such a thing exists; I don't agree that its viable as a widespread model.

Its not widespread in Seattle despite being more than six years since completion.

I notice, PE that you chose not to mention what the area around this building looks like.

Let me:

Across the street:

Hideously ugly, 4-storey townhomes pre-date this building.

This is the other neighbour to the side: (also pre-dates the Capitol, and is six storeys)

This is on the same street, just 1/3 of a block up:

This is the next street over (which Capitol backs on to)

Every SFH in this set of blocks is being removed.

Context matters. That can't be replicated in most areas.

Its not the middle of SFH, its a revitalizing, trendy area.

Again, I'm pro intensification, pro-density, but I'm also pro-do able, not pro concept art and fantasy.

****

May I also point out...........this building passes this off as a kitchen:

And the asking rent is not remotely affordable.

I rate this building, poor, not affordable, not attractive, not functional. I'd vote to tear it down in a heartbeat, and I don't want its like in Toronto at all.

 

[AlbertC]

I'd like to see more of these replicated for similar parking lots near subway stations. There's a bunch of them around stations along the Bloor line between Lansdowne to Bathurst.

 

[goodcitywhenfinished]

I'd like to see more of these replicated for similar parking lots near subway stations. There's a bunch of them around stations along the Bloor line between Lansdowne to Bathurst.

The Mayor's recent announcment seems to indicate they are looking at doing exactly that.

Although I am not sure if many of the Green P lots directly on top of the Line 2 tracks are easy to build on. I would think that there needs to be some expensive underpinning and structural reinforcement, which probably needs lots of density to pencil out. Someone with engineering knowledge knows more than me though.

 

[Northern Light]

The Mayor's recent announcment seems to indicate they are looking at doing exactly that.

Although I am not sure if many of the Green P lots directly on top of the Line 2 tracks are easy to build on. I would think that there needs to be some expensive underpinning and structural reinforcement, which probably needs lots of density to pencil out. Someone with engineering knowledge knows more than me though.

The subway tunnels are not an obstacle to construction.

They do add some additional cost, which requires some additional density/height to make one's pro-forma, but they've been built over lots of times in this city already, as they generally should be.

 

[AlbertC]

Community pop-up meeting Thursday on city development plan for Green P parking lot off Danforth Avenue – Beach Metro Community News

By AMARACHI AMADIKE, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter The City of Toronto is hosting a community pop-up meeting for a planned development on the land now occupied by a Green P parking lot at 72 Amroth Ave. on Thursday, Mar. 14. The meeting will take place at the Danforth Mennonite Church...

beachmetro.com

Community engagement meeting Thursday on city development plan for Green P parking lot off Danforth Avenue​

March 12, 2024

The City of Toronto is hosting a community engagement meeting for a planned development on the land now occupied by a Green P parking lot at 72 Amroth Ave. on Thursday, Mar. 14.

The meeting will take place at the Danforth Mennonite Church (2174 Danforth Ave.) from noon till 2 p.m.

Part of the Beaches-East York Pilot Project, this development marks the city’s eastward expansion of the Expanding Housing Options in Neighbourhoods (EHON) program.

The proposal for the Green P parking lot space at 72 Amroth Ave., just south of Danforth Avenue and one block east of Woodbine Avenue (behind the Value Village) is for a six-storey building that faces Amroth Avenue as well as two three-storey buildings. These will comprise 34 units and 18 bicycle parking spaces.

The EHON program aims to create more housing options in residential areas and bolster Toronto’s current batch of missing middle properties.

According to the City of Toronto, missing middle is described as “low-rise buildings with multiple units that are compatible with the scale and form of existing single detached dwellings in established, low-rise residential neighbourhoods”.

However, some housing experts, such as Melissa Goldstein, criticize the EHON initiative for its lack of affordable housing requirements.

“This is a strategy that is more likely to worsen housing affordability and housing instability in the immediate and medium term by encouraging real estate speculation and the redevelopment of affordable, rent protected units and the eviction of their tenants, while increasing the supply of market rate units without any rent protections,” said Goldstein in a report which she presented at Toronto City Hall last year.

EHON, she said, could inflate land values by increasing the profit potential of individual properties.

During Thursday’s meeting, those attending will have the opportunity to voice their opinions. They will be joined by members of CreateTO and city staff who will share more information about the project for 72 Amroth Ave. – such as preliminary design concepts – and answer questions.

For more information about the community engagement, contact CreateTO’s Manager of Community Engagement, Asha Dahirat, at adahir@createto.ca or 437-239-5214.

 

[Northern Light]

Community pop-up meeting Thursday on city development plan for Green P parking lot off Danforth Avenue – Beach Metro Community News

By AMARACHI AMADIKE, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter The City of Toronto is hosting a community pop-up meeting for a planned development on the land now occupied by a Green P parking lot at 72 Amroth Ave. on Thursday, Mar. 14. The meeting will take place at the Danforth Mennonite Church...

beachmetro.com

However, some housing experts, such as Melissa Goldstein, criticize the EHON initiative for its lack of affordable housing requirements.

“This is a strategy that is more likely to worsen housing affordability and housing instability in the immediate and medium term by encouraging real estate speculation and the redevelopment of affordable, rent protected units and the eviction of their tenants, while increasing the supply of market rate units without any rent protections,” said Goldstein in a report which she presented at Toronto City Hall last year.

EHON, she said, could inflate land values by increasing the profit potential of individual properties.

During Thursday’s meeting, those attending will have the opportunity to voice their opinions. They will be joined by members of CreateTO and city staff who will share more information about the project for 72 Amroth Ave. – such as preliminary design concepts – and answer questions.

For more information about the community engagement, contact CreateTO’s Manager of Community Engagement, Asha Dahirat, at adahir@createto.ca or 437-239-5214.

I don't agree w/Melissa on everything, but I think she's on point here. (see bolded above)

I'd spin it a bit differently though.

The City should be in the market to buy land on which to build affordable housing; the purchase of such land is cheaper prior to it being upzoned. If you upzone first, you make the land more expensive and reduce the amount of affordable housing you can build.

That is not an argument against upzoning generally, but rather to point out there is an order of operations.

Buy first, upzone after.

Nothing restricts the City from doing this on a wiling buyer, willing seller basis as an investor, either. The City's capital pool is large; imagine you drop 15M to buy 10 houses, that's nothing burger to the City, you then upzone to allow a 12-storey midrise, which the City could then:

a) Build the site itself
b) Sell the site, but impose conditions that it be purpose-built rental with 'x % afforable housing'
c) Sell the site outright for profit for more than 4x the original price and put the proceeds back into the affordable housing program.

Upzoning first, by contrast:

a) Make land more expensive to buy for affordable housing
b) Encourages speculation, which drives up prices/rents
c) Drives down development charge revenue on which the City depends.

Hmmmm.

 

[Northern Light]

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad to hear a so-called housing expert state that replacing a surface parking lot with 36 housing units will somehow worsen housing affordability…. Also sad to see this type of nonsense published by a journalist.

She's not a "so-called" expert, and is a huge supporter of affordable housing. She's certainly not opposed to upzoning in general. She's outlining the issues w/how the city is going about this....... and she's not wrong, this time.

****

A lot of so-called zoning reform advocates, don't seem to understand how the real world works.

See garden/laneway suites..........and the whopping six that have been or are being created thus far...... none affordable.

Turns out the effect of change is not always what you think or hope it will be...........