I'm gonna be a bit nimby-tastic. I don't know, this seems really excessive given the context of the neighbourhood. I do live nearby. I am all for this site being redeveloped, but I feel I'm within reasonable bounds by saying the height and massing do not inspire confidence. Then again, I felt everything north of Montgomery at Yonge and Eglinton should be midrise scaled at most.

I won't say that this will destroy the hood, because eventually I would get used to its....girth I guess.

I feel the building kitty corner to this one is pretty appropriate, with scaling down to 6-8 storeys all along Danforth in both directions. I get density peaks on stations, but this seems unnecessarily dense.

I also have a proposal next to my house (well, two houses over) for 6-7 stories, and I went to the community meeting in support of it when I first arrived here in 2019, so I am pro-development. If this were with several set backs (original 15s design but also like not THAT specific design) or had a nicer design altogether (that carried to execution) I might have a different mindset.

EDIT: ohhh, this dense slab of hot cheap siding is to help make up for the loss of income from Loblaws given the price-inflating and subsequent boycott! Oh Galen, stop being such a tight ass!
 
UrbanAffair said:
I'm gonna be a bit nimby-tastic. I don't know, this seems really excessive given the context of the neighbourhood. I do live nearby. I am all for this site being redeveloped, but I feel I'm within reasonable bounds by saying the height and massing do not inspire confidence. Then again, I felt everything north of Montgomery at Yonge and Eglinton should be midrise scaled at most.

I won't say that this will destroy the hood, because eventually I would get used to its....girth I guess.

I feel the building kitty corner to this one is pretty appropriate, with scaling down to 6-8 storeys all along Danforth in both directions. I get density peaks on stations, but this seems unnecessarily dense.

I also have a proposal next to my house (well, two houses over) for 6-7 stories, and I went to the community meeting in support of it when I first arrived here in 2019, so I am pro-development. If this were with several set backs (original 15s design but also like not THAT specific design) or had a nicer design altogether (that carried to execution) I might have a different mindset.
Click to expand...

Fair.

As someone living just a bit east of you though, do consider how you already get a 40% discount on proposed heights (well in excess of 50s at Main!)

But I agree w/your point on setbacks and said so in my post up thread, that I think even a modest setback at the 10th floor wrapping the Woodbine and Danforth frontages would help immensely in making the proposal seem a bit more human-scaled.

I also, of course, noted ( err harped) on the need to expand Woodbine Station, as I don't see how you can pile a few thousand more riders into an already cramped, overcrowded station.
 
Last edited:
One of the issues developers face along Danforth, outside these assembled and larger sites, is a severe lack of depth to most properties.

The solution, I imagine, might lie in the liberalizing of the OP doctrine, whereby a few houses south of Danforth could find an easier path to gentle density. Then you might have step downs, going deeper south and north of Danforth in to the "neighbourhoods' OPD, but on the plus side you would get terraces on the developments which would have nice-ish views south to the lake - and it would make most blocks along Danforth more financially feasible for development.
 
Paclo said:
This stems from an ambiguity at the city level of if rental-replacement units are counted as "proposed" units. UT considers on-site rental replacement units in the total number of proposed units.

The Project Data Sheet in this case implies that they are not
View attachment 598620

And within the Planning Rationale there are differing numbers mentioned
View attachment 598621

Due to the ambiguity and possible typos in the submission documents, I have reached out to the planner on file for clarification and will update the thread with the correct info.
Click to expand...
On the 12 x new "Affordable Housing" units is there any detail on the type of affordable or the duration of the affordability-period..?
 
Subway stops at WOODBINE this weekend, so I found myself at this corner with a group on YorkU EMBA students during our tour.
IMG_8475.jpeg


IMG_8473.jpeg
 
HousingNowTO said:
On the 12 x new "Affordable Housing" units is there any detail on the type of affordable or the duration of the affordability-period..?
Click to expand...

On a careful parsing of the Housing Issues Report, I believe the only 'affordable unit's are 12 out of the 14 replacement rental units, rather than net new affordable housing.

In respect of those, this is the applicable paragraph:

1727624635536.png


The language used here is ambiguous and conflicting in places......... (across different reports and data sheets).

I know @Paclo had a call in to firm somethings up.
 
Paclo said:
This stems from an ambiguity at the city level of if rental-replacement units are counted as "proposed" units. UT considers on-site rental replacement units in the total number of proposed units.

The Project Data Sheet in this case implies that they are not
View attachment 598620

And within the Planning Rationale there are differing numbers mentioned
View attachment 598621

Due to the ambiguity and possible typos in the submission documents, I have reached out to the planner on file for clarification and will update the thread with the correct info.
Click to expand...

I have confirmed that are 606 units currently proposed.

580 market rental

14 rental replacement

12 affordable rental
 
Decision Report - Approval recommended to the next meeting of TEYCC:


While I support intensification here, and take no real issue w/the height, the fact that this development excludes the TTC Station (air rights) and fails to address the need for future station expansion is unforgivably short sighted. What a wasted opportunity.

That said, lets see what we got here.

For @HousingNowTO

1728657433010.png


1728657463047.png

1728657500079.png


*****

Parks:

An offsite acquisition is required.

*****

TTC and Cycling:

1728657599613.png
 
No one has commented yet on the theatre, but I think that will be quite a nice amenity to be provided at this location. It will be of particular benefit to the community, but accessible city-wide given the location adjacent to a subway stop.

I am curious, though, whether anyone has information on the intended operator of this community theatre space.
 
A Torontonian Now said:
No one has commented yet on the theatre, but I think that will be quite a nice amenity to be provided at this location. It will be of particular benefit to the community, but accessible city-wide given the location adjacent to a subway stop.

I am curious, though, whether anyone has information on the intended operator of this community theatre space.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly from the community meeting, it was discussed as a new location for the coal mine theatre that's now in the building where RBC used to be -- right across Woodbine.
 
HousingNowTO said:
On the 12 x new "Affordable Housing" units is there any detail on the type of affordable or the duration of the affordability-period..?
Click to expand...

This one passed (TEYCC) today, with amendments.

Those of note for @HousingNowTO

1729803678066.png


Also

1729803714041.png
 
Northern Light said:
This one passed (TEYCC) today, with amendments.

Those of note for @HousingNowTO

View attachment 607009

Also

View attachment 607010
Click to expand...
Yeah, I deputed in support of the +60% increase in the "affordable rental unit years" (ie. 25 years -> 40 years), and encouraged CHOICE to work with the Unifor and UFCW Pension Funds to create some additional "workforce housing" apatrtments for grocery-store employees within the building.

It made for an interesting "Recorded Vote" for and against the improved affordable housing delivery program at TEYCC.
 
HousingNowTO said:
Yeah, I deputed in support of the +60% increase in the "affordable rental unit years" (ie. 25 years -> 40 years), and encouraged CHOICE to work with the Unifor and UFCW Pension Funds to create some additional "workforce housing" apatrtments for grocery-store employees within the building.

It made for an interesting "Recorded Vote" for and against the improved affordable housing delivery program at TEYCC.
Click to expand...
Noting there is a local Anti-development petition on Change-dot-Org, but it is not getting much traction…

www.change.org

Sign the Petition

Stop Zoning By-law Amendment Bill 1166 and the 35-Storey Tall Bldg. at 985 Woodbine Ave.
www.change.org www.change.org
 
HousingNowTO said:
Noting there is a local Anti-development petition on Change-dot-Org, but it is not getting much traction…

www.change.org

Sign the Petition

Stop Zoning By-law Amendment Bill 1166 and the 35-Storey Tall Bldg. at 985 Woodbine Ave.
www.change.org www.change.org
Click to expand...

I love how it's all about the poor local businesses. I'm sure they're gutted at the prospect of a few thousand new local residents. How could that ever compensate for a few lost parking spaces?!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top