And the most laughable part? While it's true that this is an extremely walkable, bike-able and easy-access-to-transit site, people will still have cars. The style and locale of the building will attract a downsizing demo from Riverdale, the Beach etc. The percentage of renters will be low. Boomers drive a lot: to get groceries, to their cottages, whatever. The city will not grant any overnight permits to anybody in the building. So good luck on those 90 parking spots for 220 units.

I wouldn't be overly concerned about this.

The parking provision is higher than many other recent developments at 0.35 spaces per unit.

The Transportation Impact Study which is in with the Docs on the Application Information Centre site shows the range of recent precedents.

Excluding one very small site near Queen/Ossington, The range of parking provision is 0.21 spaces per unit to something like 0.45.

So they're in the middle to slightly above median range.

I would strongly expect that someone wanting a parking spot w/their condo, would not buy the condo w/o a space secured and simply hope one would pop into existence.

****

My concern around the ground water seep intercepted by the third level of underground parking, however, would ideally be mitigated by removing most or all of that level of parking.

That would remove 29 spaces and lower the ratio to something in the 0.26 - 0.28 range, which might well be more challenging to meet.

I attended this last night I have to say that Diamond gave me the distinct impression that he was confident that he would get approval at the LPAT/OMB or whatever it is now -- and, if he can't get that, he'll get a MZO . There has to be a reason why he bought this site after four or five other applicants (including Alterra, Revera) before him bailed -- all coincidentally right after the big drilling trucks were onsite to test the soil. That says a lot to us "NIMBY"-types.

Diamond wouldn't be wrong to be confident.

He has a track record.

He got the Scrivener Court site approved without anyone in Rosedale/SummerHill appealing.

That's a good trick if you can do it.

The project has issues; I've said as much.

But I don't think area residents hoping for 8 floors or less are likely to be happy.

I don't think he'll need an MZO.

Some changes are required.

But I don't think you'll see big movement on height/density.

There's almost certainly some wiggle room.

But not nearly as much as some might want or hope.
 
Last edited:
New Renderings updated! In addition, the building's height, storey count and unit counts are also all reduced. Renderings are taken from the architectural plan via the Rezoning Applications:

PLN - Architectural Plans - SEP 10  2021-25.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - SEP 10  2021-26.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - SEP 10  2021-27.jpg
 
Here's the before as a reminder…

image-000-jpg.285372


… so down by 2 storeys.

42

Ha! I may have had some peripheral involvement here; and there may have been a conversation a very long time ago in which I said; Diamond will move; but the most it will get you is 2 storeys.
 
Further details on the revisions, and a bit more commentary:

1632429342768.png

1632429480097.png


Commentary:

Of note here is that I did indicate early on that the encroachment in the 10M from stable top of bank would be an issue and the TRCA would be unlikely to permit that.

I see I was correct and the building has been amended accordingly, as it should have been!

1632429799329.png
 

Attachments

  • 1632429376036.png
    1632429376036.png
    23.7 KB · Views: 117
  • 1632429470177.png
    1632429470177.png
    101.9 KB · Views: 117
Lol we have a housing crisis and we shrank a building next to a notably taller building by 2 stories to placate NIMBYs. It's such a minor change it feels ridiculous. I'd understand if we cut off 10 stories from a substantially taller proposal or something but like, this is pedantic. It barely helps anyone, and just makes the crisis worse.

It's almost like the people in charge already own houses and don't actually care about the rest of us.
 
Losing those two stories was very unnecessary. Still, I like the bike parking and parking spot-to-unit ratio. I look forward to seeing the old school restored.
 
Lol we have a housing crisis and we shrank a building next to a notably taller building by 2 stories to placate NIMBYs. It's such a minor change it feels ridiculous. I'd understand if we cut off 10 stories from a substantially taller proposal or something but like, this is pedantic. It barely helps anyone, and just makes the crisis worse.

It's almost like the people in charge already own houses and don't actually care about the rest of us.

The complaints that came from those across Broadview, whose views would be immensely improved by the restored school baffle me, insofar as they related to height.
I have one modicum of sympathy only there, which is that there was a plan for Broadivew and it was for shorter buildings here (the plan may well have been wrong, but I do understand people saying 'but we just did a plan, and it wasn't for this'

For the people directly south on Chester Hill I have more time, in as much as this will be a bit imposing beyond their backyard fences. Yes, that's selfish, no we should not let that rule the day; but it's also ok in my mind for people to represent their own interest. However, I think they would have been better served leaving the tower height alone, and nudging the podium down, or back from their yards to create more of an illusion of privacy; or asking for Diamond to pay for large tree stock to provide a privacy screen.

Shrug.

I was fine w/the height.

I did take issue w/encroachment into the valley lands, that has been resolved.

I still have some concerns about the impact on hydrology, which isn't a height issue, but a depth one.

But there were improvements in that regard; and Diamond was never likely to go to only 1 level of underground parking........
 
Last edited:
The silver lining of the shorter building is that it gives the old Chester Public School more prominence.
 
Request for Direction (to oppose this at OLT) is headed to the Oct 14th meeting of TEYCC.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-171377.pdf

* of note, this report, as I read it is on the previous version of the proposal, not the one we've had a look at dated Sept 10th.

Staff are still reviewing the revised proposal.

The report's hardlines were TRCA-related issues about building placement (which have changed in the more recent iteration, but maybe not enough, I haven't had time to review what's in this report vs what its in the revised docs.), as well
as heritage related issues.

From the above report:

1633015580126.png
 
New renderings are updated in the database. The building height changed from 50.50m to 56.4m. The building storey count went from 14 storeys to 16 storeys. The overall total unit count increased from 197 units to 214 units. Lastly, the total parking spaces remain at 88 parking spaces.

New renderings are taken from the architectural plan via Site Plan Approval:

PLN - Architectural Plans - DEC 17  2021 (2)-121.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - DEC 17  2021 (2)-122.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - DEC 17  2021 (2)-123.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
New renderings are updated in the database. The building height changed from 50.50m to 56.4m. The building storey count went from 14 storeys to 16 storeys. The overall total parking count increased from 197 units to 214 units. Lastly, the total parking spaces remain at 88 parking spaces.

New renderings are taken from the architectural plan via Site Plan Approval:

View attachment 375392

View attachment 375393

View attachment 375394

Important to note, from the Cover Letter that this will still probably drop to 14 floors; the issue is that the settlement agreement has yet to be finalized; and clearly Diamond isn't making concessions until it is:

1642538544018.png
 

Back
Top