Northern Light
Superstar
Well.......you don't see this every day.........
We have our first application that is relying on the not yet in force relaxed guidelines for the Danforth. It's a 32-units/18 dwelling rooms, 8 storey, affordable housing proposal from Woodgreen, it's also Mass Timber and Modular.
Due to the reliance on the forthcoming guidelines, Planning has allowed this one to skip Zoning entirely, and go straight to SPA.
The existing building would arguably be historical and/or architectural appealing to some (Church); The intent in this proposal is preserve the existing facade/foyer along Danforth and one other architectural feature at the rear, and build new between those.
Of note here, the building is neither 'listed', nor 'designated', and it was reviewed for those, with Council opting not to include it as a listed 'cultural resource' property relatively recently.
Site as is:
The App:
app.toronto.ca
From the Docs:
****
Comments: There is much to like here. A very worthwhile initiative to provide much needed affordable housing, innovative construction techniques, efforts to also meet community needs, and both the applicant and the City moving
to endorse the spirit of the new Danforth guidelines to allow this to happen without going through the ZBA process.
All that said, and while noting, on balance, I support this, I do have a few concerns.
I agree w/the choice made by Council not to extend statutory protection to this building. though some will differ, I'm not particularly keen on the existing building from an architectural perspective, not aesthetically, and not in terms of its impact on the retail character of Danforth. I'm sure the applicant is seeking to be a good neighbour here, and to ease any concerns, yet I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a completely new-build here.
In relation to the above, if there was a consensus to retain the Danforth facade/foyer, I would still wonder at retaining the additional piece of the original building further south. I wonder about the impacts in terms of the relatively small amount of housing being provided, and adverse impacts on the cost of construction.
Lets be frank, the new build portion here looks architecturally atrocious; I'm frankly prepared to let that slip given the worthy cause, but wonder if $$ spent preserving what I perceive to be low-value heritage might have been better used to upgrade the appearance of lower, non-setback floors in the new build, while still having net gains in budget and space for affordable housing.
If the site were organized to extend the new build to Danforth, and along the full length of the the side street, It seems to me that the the affordable housing yield might be an additional 14 units at the lower end, and perhaps 21 or more. (depending on setbacks, and choices made around the proposed courtyard.
On balance, there is so much good achieved here, I'm loathe to delay this, or drive up its costs at all; and I want to laud the good intentions of all parties here; but yet I feel something better might have been achieved here just the same.
We have our first application that is relying on the not yet in force relaxed guidelines for the Danforth. It's a 32-units/18 dwelling rooms, 8 storey, affordable housing proposal from Woodgreen, it's also Mass Timber and Modular.
Due to the reliance on the forthcoming guidelines, Planning has allowed this one to skip Zoning entirely, and go straight to SPA.
The existing building would arguably be historical and/or architectural appealing to some (Church); The intent in this proposal is preserve the existing facade/foyer along Danforth and one other architectural feature at the rear, and build new between those.
Of note here, the building is neither 'listed', nor 'designated', and it was reviewed for those, with Council opting not to include it as a listed 'cultural resource' property relatively recently.
Site as is:
The App:
Application Details
app.toronto.ca
From the Docs:
****
Comments: There is much to like here. A very worthwhile initiative to provide much needed affordable housing, innovative construction techniques, efforts to also meet community needs, and both the applicant and the City moving
to endorse the spirit of the new Danforth guidelines to allow this to happen without going through the ZBA process.
All that said, and while noting, on balance, I support this, I do have a few concerns.
I agree w/the choice made by Council not to extend statutory protection to this building. though some will differ, I'm not particularly keen on the existing building from an architectural perspective, not aesthetically, and not in terms of its impact on the retail character of Danforth. I'm sure the applicant is seeking to be a good neighbour here, and to ease any concerns, yet I wonder if we wouldn't be better off with a completely new-build here.
In relation to the above, if there was a consensus to retain the Danforth facade/foyer, I would still wonder at retaining the additional piece of the original building further south. I wonder about the impacts in terms of the relatively small amount of housing being provided, and adverse impacts on the cost of construction.
Lets be frank, the new build portion here looks architecturally atrocious; I'm frankly prepared to let that slip given the worthy cause, but wonder if $$ spent preserving what I perceive to be low-value heritage might have been better used to upgrade the appearance of lower, non-setback floors in the new build, while still having net gains in budget and space for affordable housing.
If the site were organized to extend the new build to Danforth, and along the full length of the the side street, It seems to me that the the affordable housing yield might be an additional 14 units at the lower end, and perhaps 21 or more. (depending on setbacks, and choices made around the proposed courtyard.
On balance, there is so much good achieved here, I'm loathe to delay this, or drive up its costs at all; and I want to laud the good intentions of all parties here; but yet I feel something better might have been achieved here just the same.
Last edited:
