A Member Motion before this week's Council meeting seeks to advance demolition of some of the now vacant properties here in advance of building permits.

The reason given is not the usual issues w/vandalism and property condition, but rather the need for further geo-technical testing (deep borehole) for which the standing buildings are an impediment.

Also of note, in the report is that this one, already Approved by Council, has been appealed to the OLT by an adjacent property owner.


From the above:

1699534134384.png

1699534153961.png
 
timmy1618 said:
Is there any updates on this project?
Click to expand...

Normally, it's bad form to ask that question; as members tend to post any info we have, once we have it.

That said...............

There wasn't any news when you asked; but there is now.

SPA resubmission February 15th, 2024:

@Paclo is flagged for any database updates, while I post the renders.

* The height listed in the title was not updated the last time it changed; we're now at 38s (37 residential + 1 amenity) and 126.9M excluding MPH or 133.07M inclusive. I will amend the title accordingly.

Up to date AIC link:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

1709594291358.png


1709594108921.png


1709594155271.png


1709594190367.png


1709594220690.png
 
Northern Light said:
Normally, it's bad form to ask that question; as members tend to post any info we have, once we have it.

That said...............

There wasn't any news when you asked; but there is now.

SPA resubmission February 15th, 2024:

@Paclo is flagged for any database updates, while I post the renders.

* The height listed in the title was not updated the last time it changed; we're now at 38s (37 residential + 1 amenity) and 126.9M excluding MPH or 133.07M inclusive. I will amend the title accordingly.

Up to date AIC link:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

View attachment 545707

View attachment 545703

View attachment 545704

View attachment 545705

View attachment 545706
Click to expand...
Sorry I just found this website when I was searching , did not know about the rules :) Thank you for the update.
 
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Minor Variance application with the following changes:
  • Storeys increased from 38 to 45 (incl. indoor amenity on 45th level)
  • Height increased from 133.08 to 150.48m
  • Total residential units increased from 500 to 576 (remains inclusive of 15 affordable rentals)
  • Total vehicular parking decreased from 79 to 78
  • Total bicycle parking increased from 501 to 577
No new renderings; CoA hearing date has not been scheduled yet.
 
Paclo said:
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Minor Variance application with the following changes:
  • Storeys increased from 38 to 45 (incl. indoor amenity on 45th level)
  • Height increased from 133.08 to 150.48m
  • Total residential units increased from 500 to 576 (remains inclusive of 15 affordable rentals)
  • Total vehicular parking decreased from 79 to 78
  • Total bicycle parking increased from 501 to 577
No new renderings; CoA hearing date has not been scheduled yet.
Click to expand...

My comments:

1) Not Minor and should be refused for that reason. They can resubmit for an extra 7 storeys and I'm happy to consider it, but I consider the use of minor variances for non-trivial changes to be an abuse of process.

2) If you wish to be indulged......at least come forward with a proportionate increase in the number of affordable units. This should increase from 15 to, at least 18 units.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AHK
I agree they should increase the amount of affordable units if adding more floors and not sure the code for number of elevators but common sense there needs to be at least a bank of 6 for that number of people.
 
ProjectEnd said:
576 units on 4 elevators. Great work, guys.

Good chance Core will never build this so it doesn't matter in the context of this project as it exists on paper now, but it does highlight the degree to which the Code *needs* to regulate conveyancing.
Click to expand...
The Landlord has moved in at least two new tenants so must expect a long delay as well.
 
timmy1618 said:
I agree they should increase the amount of affordable units if adding more floors and not sure the code for number of elevators but common sense there needs to be at least a bank of 6 for that number of people.
Click to expand...

There isn't, really, for all intents and purposes two are required and that's it, developer's discretion thereafter. Which is incredibly stupid..........but there you go.

****

Six is about right, you can assess the number of elevators differently based on performance (things like speed, and programming impact how many are required); that said, the rule of thumb here is one per hundred units to provide reasonable service.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
There isn't, really, for all intents and purposes two are required and that's it, developer's discretion thereafter. Which is incredibly stupid..........but there you go.

****

Six is about right, you can assess the number of elevators differently based on performance (things like speed, and programming impact how many are required); that said, the rule of thumb here is one per hundred units to provide reasonable service.
Click to expand...
I believe this will get built but many developers are going back to add more floors to get their financing together ,prices drop $300 per sq ft they need to bring to value up somewhere . I was able to read the entire contract of one of the tenants getting one of the 15 units. That is how many tenants that are losing housing so it was not a good will thing to do affordable units. To get demolition permits the city negotiated on behalf of these tenant. They get same number of bedrooms as they have now although much smaller units and it is for 20 years ,most left already and are getting their gap payments in a lump sum of 3 years and will get another rent gap payment in 2027 if building is not done. The person I know has left already and got the lump sum ,they were told it is delayed by 6 months which would be spring /summer 2028 occupancy. There are around 7 tenant units still occupied on site.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top