concrete_and_light said:
I welcome the much needed redevelopment of low density homes into apartments, but let's hope they preserve the trees.
Click to expand...
You really think they're going to save the trees? They're going to need lot of space to build the 16 storey building and the roots underneath travel . The trees might not survive in the long run even if they're preserved. This is a beginning of the end for this island of single family homes that are kept nicely . Surrounded by condos, comercial and industrial properties etc.
 
cd concept said:
You really think they're going to save the trees? They're going to need lot of space to build the 16 storey building and the roots underneath travel . The trees might not survive in the long run even if they're preserved. This is a beginning of the end for this island of single family homes that are kept nicely . Surrounded by condos, comercial and industrial properties etc.
Click to expand...

I'm honestly not sure what the rules would be here around the trees — some developments seem to have to save trees sometimes (I believe, maybe I'm wrong), some don't. Would be interested to learn more about exactly what determines that. But no, I'm not at all hopeful that they will save them. Which is sad. Putting aside that they're life that we should protect for itself if we can, trees like this take decades, generations to grow and provide massive benefit to the urban landscape, air quality, temperature control, and general quality of life in the city. Obviously some will have to go in some situations, but our city should value them.
 
cd concept said:
You really think they're going to save the trees? They're going to need lot of space to build the 16 storey building and the roots underneath travel . The trees might not survive in the long run even if they're preserved. This is a beginning of the end for this island of single family homes that are kept nicely . Surrounded by condos, comercial and industrial properties etc.
Click to expand...

If the footprint of the new building is set where the south limit of the foundations are for the existing buildings (or further north), they will not impact the tree roots unduly.

As I showed with the footprint I drew above, it is viable to place a new building here and preserve the trees.

The width I selected was based on the two nearby towers.

That doesn't mean they will preserve them; but they can and they should.
 
Raw Design

Temple-Ave.png
 
The tower is fine along with the podium arches. However, the grade level interaction with how it lines Dufferin with almost a blank face is terrible.
 
From the Landscape Plan: They intend to save the nice trees along Temple Ave!
1612486917162.png


However............I'm not sure I agree that the trees will be viable...............

1612488146284.png



If you look at the above, the size of the circle reflects the size of the tree crown today.

As a rule of thumb, the trees roots will reach out to roughly the same distance.

But here, you see the crowns all go over the line where the underground parking will be located.

That suggests to me that material root trimming will be required.

The crowns also appear in a couple of cases to be right up against the new building.................hmmmmm.

Not ideal.

The trees are 'Little Leaf Lindens'.

Non-native; but not too much of a concern here as street trees.

They are pretty tough; their condition is rated fair.

They stand a chance.

But I'd really love to nudge the building even 1M to the north.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
That giant blank wall along Dufferin has got to go. Ideally that amenity space is replaced with retail too.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Seems to me they could take the arches from floors 2-5 and bring them down to the street. it would provide a nice street wall and a natural articulation for different retail units.
 
I really don't think retail would be viable on this stretch of Dufferin - maybe something small like a cafe but that's wishful thinking.
 
I really like the look of this one. I like the look of the podium along Dufferin, the townhouse scale along Temple, the tower being a modern take on an older apartment stock in the area, with appropriate setbacks and transition zones separating each.

To me, the only flaw is the one outlined by others; the blank wall along Dufferin. Including space north of the entrance for a small convenience store or similar retail is all that is needed to fix that. Even just extending the lobby and some glazing into that area would help.
 
Wow, 273 units on .6 acres? That's hella high density: that's 455 units prorated to one acre, 112,385 units per square kilometre which is over 200,000 people/square km.
edit: totally support this density, but always wistful we didn't build more developments like this back in the day.
 
Still some work to do design wise on this, but exciting direction IMO. Great to pick up so much extra housing in locations like this.
 
HousingNowTO said:
Can we give them a Density-Bonus, build-up to 19 storeys, and get 40-ish new Affordable-Rentals out of this building..?

View attachment 299444
Click to expand...
Absolutely. Affordable housing is what is most needed in Parkdale right now: while the proposal is preserving the existing “affordable”housing, it’s NOT affordable to someone on a low income, it eliminates the homes of five people in dwelling rooms, and much, much more is needed.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top