My bad - he's on the regular DRP - not the WT
 
From the Nov 15 WTDRP:

http://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm/...99bbde8/03_Rekai_DRP_Nov15+WM.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

upload_2017-11-17_15-34-25.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-34-33.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-34-45.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-34-56.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-35-7.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-35-18.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-35-24.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-35-32.png


upload_2017-11-17_15-35-41.png


The courtyard is a little too tight for my tastes - would have preferred a slightly wider space compensated for by slightly increasing (1 floor?) the height of the LTC.

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-17_15-34-25.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-34-25.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,564
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-34-33.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-34-33.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,575
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-34-45.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-34-45.png
    180.4 KB · Views: 1,471
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-34-56.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-34-56.png
    517.7 KB · Views: 1,485
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-35-7.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-35-7.png
    112.9 KB · Views: 1,491
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-35-18.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-35-18.png
    1 MB · Views: 1,510
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-35-24.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-35-24.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 1,455
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-35-32.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-35-32.png
    1.6 MB · Views: 1,547
  • upload_2017-11-17_15-35-41.png
    upload_2017-11-17_15-35-41.png
    513.3 KB · Views: 1,470
I'd like to see more retail uses on ground level.. move the kitchen and other Long term care related facilities to the second level..
 
I will be interested to see if the panel comments on the fact that the height is 3x what the secondary plan allows. Will they be less stringent because it is affordable housing? Does the building need to be a minimum of 29 storeys because the politicians determined how many affordable housing units they wanted to fit on the site?
 
Toronto1834 said:
I will be interested to see if the panel comments on the fact that the height is 3x what the secondary plan allows. Will they be less stringent because it is affordable housing? Does the building need to be a minimum of 29 storeys because the politicians determined how many affordable housing units they wanted to fit on the site?
Click to expand...

Honestly though I am totally ok with it - it's going to be right by a Relief Line stop.

AoD
 
Can’t say I’m for the tower portion of this proposal. It’s too tall for the area. It doesn’t conform to the secondary plan and we chopped down 18 Eastern to 12 storeys, so why does this get more? It also overwhelms the historic school to the north. Also I thought we were past large, 100% affordable housing buildings as a planning concept.
 
mcornett said:
Can’t say I’m for the tower portion of this proposal. It’s too tall for the area. It doesn’t conform to the secondary plan and we chopped down 18 Eastern to 12 storeys, so why does this get more? It also overwhelms the historic school to the north. Also I thought we were past large, 100% affordable housing buildings as a planning concept.
Click to expand...

Because there are only so many sites available for affordable housing, and it is imperative that we expand the supply? Plus this is "affordable" as in relatively cheap to purchase for a segment that is not well served by the private sector, not RGI housing.

AoD
 
Can't we have a mid rise community without a tall tower proliferating it? The other tall towers are more or less around the perimeter.
It's also Options for Homes. They build condos that are usually 20% cheaper than market rates (not that affordable really) and they are all duds in appearance.
 
maestro said:
Can't we have a mid rise community without a tall tower proliferating it? The other tall towers are more or less around the perimeter.
It's also Options for Homes. They build condos that are usually 20% cheaper than market rates (not that affordable really) and they are all duds in appearance.
Click to expand...
Proliferating is not the word you want, not sure which one you do though. This tower is on the perimeter of the West Don Lands too, so not sure what that point means either, unless you simply mean taller than anything adjacent to it.

20% cheaper than normal is a big deal, particularly when there aren't too many options for getting 30, 40, or 50% off market. Just what do you suggest?

I'd like to see Options get as much density here as makes sense. I don't know if that means 29 storeys exactly or if there's another height which would make more sense by some metric or other—the planners can hammer out the numbers—but if they aren't putting up the Taj Mahal here, boohoo: there's an affordable housing crisis in this city, and when weighing Option's architectural legacy against the average Toronto condo developer, there's no guarantee of an aesthetic triumph in comparison. This is on a streetcar line, may be close to a subway station in the future, doesn't look like it will cast onerous shadows on nearby low-rise homes, so let's go crazy, let's build something substantial here!

42
 
interchange42 said:
Proliferating is not the word you want, not sure which one you do though. This tower is on the perimeter of the West Don Lands too, so not sure what that point means either, unless you simply mean taller than anything adjacent to it.

20% cheaper than normal is a big deal, particularly when there aren't too many options for getting 30, 40, or 50% off market. Just what do you suggest?

I'd like to see Options get as much density here as makes sense. I don't know if that means 29 storeys exactly or if there's another height which would make more sense by some metric or other—the planners can hammer out the numbers—but if they aren't putting up the Taj Mahal here, boohoo: there's an affordable housing crisis in this city, and when weighing Option's architectural legacy against the average Toronto condo developer, there's no guarantee of an aesthetic triumph in comparison. This is on a streetcar line, may be close to a subway station in the future, doesn't look like it will cast onerous shadows on nearby low-rise homes, so let's go crazy, let's build something substantial here!

42
Click to expand...

Obviously, I meant taller than anything adjacent to it. I didn't mention the West Don Lands precinct at all. It's an aesthetic choice. I don't care for tall towers mixed with medium rises. Their designs seldom live up to their wayfinding, landmark stature. Ultimately, consistent built form and densities is far more successful. My other point isn't that 20% isn't a significant discount. It's that 20% less on an expensive 29 storey point tower is still going to be expensive. If it's all about density around transit than why not 80 storeys with 2.5 times the affordable units?
 
This is about to move ahead owned 100% by REKAI HOMES (Note to Mods: Thread title change!). This from Peter Rekai. "I Just wanted to confirm we are now the proud owners of the Cherry St property and we are looking at using the entire property for our long term care home and for some (very innovative) related community health services. The architects are now at work and we will be sharing plans as they develop." I would say this is very good news and they are apparently continuing with same architects EDIT but only 9-10 floors. UPDATE: It will apparently be 8-9 TALL floors (to accommodate older residents who need care.)
 
Last edited:
Curious. If affordable ownership units were unworkable on the site, surely market condominiums would?

That is 19-ish floors of revenue that they could have partnered with someone like Dream on.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top