ferusian said:
From Choice Properties REIT's Q2 Investor Presentation:

View attachment 337130
Click to expand...

Does look like a different design.

Rental would be welcome here.

Can't say I care for the cladding.

Looks like preserving the existing corner building in-situ in that render, I want to see the proposed sidewalk widening on Woodbine happen and I trust that will not impede same.

***

As yet, no new plans have been filed with the City per/the AIC.
 
interchange42 said:
I'm guessing he got it from superkül. Alex is plugged in. Occasionally gets a piece published in a local rag.

42
Click to expand...

FYI - for Nuts2020 and any other new members who may not be aware - some clarification of Craig's comment: Alex Bozikovic is the Globe & Mail's architecture critic, published regularly in the national media (otherwise known to some as a local rag), participates in industry seminars and conferences, and is well connected with individuals within both the development industry and various government bureaucracies.
 
Something is afoot here.

New application in as at Sept 29 to subdivide the property into 2 blocks.

No new supporting docs at this point.

1634232788139.png
 
it's to avoid inclusionary zoning requirements. The provincial regulations don't allow municipalities to enforce inclusionary zoning on a project with both a zoning by-law amendment and plan of subdivision / plan of condominium file submitted prior to the passing of the by-law.

The IZ by-law will be passed in November, which means developers are scrambling to file pointless plan of subdivision applications to ensure council doesn't retroactively apply it to them. The draft regulations from staff aren't even proposing to do this anyway, instead setting a deadline of september 2022 before IZ policies come into force.. (yet alone retroactively applying it to existing zoning by-law amendment applications), but developers are hedging their risk to make sure council can't pull a rogue move on them.
 
@innsertnamehere - the draft regulations secretly released on Friday last week only say SPA, not Draft Plan / Plan of Sub. So the wild ride JD Barnes, KRCMAR, and others have been on the last two months, all appears for naught. We'll still submit and get our number, for sure, but it's no longer 'required' as it once was thought it'd be.
 
Any update on this project?

Not that I can afford a condo, but I'm still obsessed with this location, and I would totally buy a unit if I was in the market.
The proximity of the condo, grocery store, and subway station is just superb. And it's not downtown, so you're getting mostly trees in your view. I think it's excellent.
 
LemonCondo said:
Any update on this project?

Not that I can afford a condo, but I'm still obsessed with this location, and I would totally buy a unit if I was in the market.
The proximity of the condo, grocery store, and subway station is just superb. And it's not downtown, so you're getting mostly trees in your view. I think it's excellent.
Click to expand...

Nope; still w/the proponent, not appealed so far as I know, will be resubmitted in due course.

****

Pssst. In general, you don't need to ask for updates, when people have'em, they share'em.
 
Apologies for a no-news (for now) thread bump.

The AIC links above are broken and I want to park a new one that works!

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

That said, I anticipate news here soon, there is activity on this behind the scenes.
 
Finally, this one is back..............there was a reason it was gone so long.....just a tiny rework. LOL

From 14s to ??? 35s!

Architect is now Superkul

This is a bit from the Cover Letter:

1705343675712.png


Now from the Planning Report:

1705343740545.png

1705343764300.png


1705343791620.png

1705343820072.png


Revised Stats:

1705343858030.png

One new Render:

1705344195895.png


Revised Site Plan:

1705344761192.png


Comments: Overall, I'm fine w/what I'm seeing here. Though, what's with the middle layer of the cake being offset? That looks goofy.

I do have some issues with what I don't see. I feel strongly that some expansion of Woodbine Station should be baked into this proposal. It does not appear that suggestion was heeded.

@HousingNowTO in particular, will take interest as this is the first significant height on Danforth west of Main until you get the Pape/Danforth proposal.
As a major site, at a Transit Station.........affordable housing as a component might seem in order.

Parking Ratio is 0.15

Elevator Ratio: 0.93 elevators per 100 units on a combined basis for both buildings.

@Paclo is duly flagged
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Finally, this one is back..............there was a reason it was gone so long.....just a tiny rework. LOL

From 14s to ??? 35s!

This is a bit from the Cover Letter:

View attachment 533409

Now from the Planning Report:

View attachment 533410
View attachment 533411

View attachment 533412
View attachment 533413

Revised Stats:

View attachment 533414
One new Render:

View attachment 533415

Revised Site Plan:

View attachment 533419

Comments: Overall, I'm fine w/what I'm seeing here. Though, what's with the middle layer of the cake being offset? That looks goofy.

I do have some issues with what I don't see. I feel strongly that some expansion of Woodbine Station should be baked into this proposal. It does not appear that suggestion was heeded.

@HousingNowTO in particular, will take interest as this is the first significant height on Danforth west of Main until you get the Pape/Danforth proposal.
As a major site, at a Transit Station.........affordable housing as a component might seem in order.

Parking Ratio is 0.15

Elevator Ratio: 0.93 elevators per 100 units on a combined basis for both buildings.

@Paclo is duly flagged
Click to expand...

Yep, I like it. I think the 30 storey range is good for the main intersections along the Danforth, with mid-rises along the remainder of the stretch. I suspect the Pape & Danforth proposal at 49 storeys, currently at the OLT, will end up closer to this range.
 
Sanity prevails, and the "Great Pyramid of Woodbine" is no more..!

An angular-plane example so crazy that even Chinese-Language TV News wanted to talk about it - (4 min 40 sec) -

Our volunteers need to run the numbers on these new massings to determine our Affordable Housing "ask" -- and if the WESTON SENIORS FOUNDATION, or one of the UCFW Pension Funds can help to make something work.
 
Last edited:
HousingNowTO said:
Sanity prevails, and the "Great Pyramid of Woodbine" is no more..!

An angular-plane example so crazy that even Chinese-Language TV News wanted to talk about it - (4 min 40 sec) -

Our volunteers need to run the numbers on these new massings to determine our Affordable Housing "ask" -- and if the WESTON SENIORS FOUNDATION, or one of the UCFW Pension Funds can help to make something work.
Click to expand...

You wanted some elevation drawings?

South Elevation:

1705368130821.png


1705368168294.png


1705368199169.png


1705368311503.png


1705368272319.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top