Northern Light said:
@taal ........... I don't think I'm sold on the idea.

I would generally agree with the spirit of what @AlvinofDiaspar has said above, and there is room here to replace the townhouses with midrise.

The challenge is, if you cap out at ~8s, the existing housing is generally 3 storey (townhomes), the moment you convert to 8,storey midrise you lose some space to separation distance/setback, to a loading zone, to elevators and 2 stairwells.

At a very back of the napkin level, I can see boosting the density in this model, but probably not enough to make any financial sense.

There are also shadow issues to consider the moment you go taller, not just on Crombie Park, but Princess Park as well; and the question of how to find an appropriation for net new park space that would be triggered by the increased density.

I personally don't think significant height here is desirable. But if you wanted to go that route, its a bit more interesting, but you would almost certainly be limited to the Jarvis/Sherborourne/Parliament frontages, which aren't, for most part, the townhomes, but midrises.

This is again very problematic, but you would have to go quite high to offset the cost of what you're removing.

****

I should add, I had a look at the unit composition here, the majority of townhomes are 3brdm, and there are very few of these in the midrises, so the way this was organized was largely singles/no-child couples in the midrises and families with kids in the townhomes. That further complicates matters as you would need to at least replace all those 3brdm units before we get started discussing net new accommodation.
Click to expand...

There is some room to boost the density further - directly abutting the railway tracks in a way that is broadly similar to Canary Landing.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
There is some room to boost the density further - directly abutting the railway tracks in a way that is broadly similar to Canary Landing.

AoD
Click to expand...

From Longboat southwards to the rear lane is less than 20M; if you include the lane as repurposeable, you'd get to 25M.

Not impossible, but very, very tight, I suspect you'd have to go slab-style E-W and that would be a big no-no with Planning, at any material height, as it would block sunlight.

Its definitely not enough for a normal tall build, where you really want lot depth above 35M, and typically closer to 40M, to allow for setbacks.
 
taal said:
@Northern Light I was referring to the townhomes - I don't think they're co-ops - here's a listing: https://housesigma.com/bkv2/landing...utm_source=user-share&utm_medium=desktop&ign=
Click to expand...
There are some single-owner town homes, some co-ops, some TCHC buildings and a couple of condos in the area south of The Esplanade. Part of the attraction of St Lawrence is that it contains a variety of kinds of housing (which are virtually undistinguishable from the street). It makes NO sense to knock down all the low-rise and build taller.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
From Longboat southwards to the rear lane is less than 20M; if you include the lane as repurposeable, you'd get to 25M.

Not impossible, but very, very tight, I suspect you'd have to go slab-style E-W and that would be a big no-no with Planning, at any material height, as it would block sunlight.

Its definitely not enough for a normal tall build, where you really want lot depth above 35M, and typically closer to 40M, to allow for setbacks.
Click to expand...

I am thinking of fundamentally reorganizing the street grid for the townhouse blocks - I get approximately 100M (a bit more actually, but just take the nice round number for a thought exercise) to play with in that scenario.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I am thinking of fundamentally reorganizing the street grid for the townhouse blocks - I get approximately 100M (a bit more actually, but just take the nice round number for a thought exercise) to play with in that scenario.

AoD
Click to expand...

If you're knocking down the townhouses between Longboat and the midrises that is certainly do-able, but that's a lot of density to replace, particularly if the City requires maintaining comparable size units.

I think it would be exceedingly challenging to make the numbers work, especially if the desire was to retain a similar feeling/scale overall from the street.
 
I could see it happening in 20/30 years :)
 
This article in BlogTO about the abandoned tunnel from Park to School on The Esplanade may be of interest https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/10/building-david-crombie-park-toronto/

Like much on BlogTO, the article is incomplete/misleading and fails to note that the pavilion will be demolished as part of the re-do of the Park next year (the tunnel below the street will remain, apparently - as a dead end.)
 
DSC said:
This article in BlogTO about the abandoned tunnel from Park to School on The Esplanade may be of interest https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/10/building-david-crombie-park-toronto/
Click to expand...

Read it, yesterday

DSC said:
Like much on BlogTO, the article is incomplete/misleading
Click to expand...

Almost always.

DSC said:
and fails to note that the pavilion will be demolished as part of the re-do of the Park next year (the tunnel below the street will remain, apparently - as a dead end.)
Click to expand...

I was just thinking of sending you a message to ask; since I knew you'd know.
 
DSC said:
This article in BlogTO about the abandoned tunnel from Park to School on The Esplanade may be of interest https://www.blogto.com/city/2024/10/building-david-crombie-park-toronto/

Like much on BlogTO, the article is incomplete/misleading and fails to note that the pavilion will be demolished as part of the re-do of the Park next year (the tunnel below the street will remain, apparently - as a dead end.)
Click to expand...
Dejavu. This seems like a recent discussion. Did I ask if they are paying a monthly tax for the tunnel similar to sugar wharf phase 1 path tunnel. 30 years of tax and no use. Hard to believe this wasn’t a construction warranty issue back in 1993 or 94.
Or was it really a parent / kid safety issue back in 90s?
 
As far as the pavilion goes is there an option to move it to Guildwood Inn?! Maybe?!
 
mburrrrr said:
Dejavu. This seems like a recent discussion. Did I ask if they are paying a monthly tax for the tunnel similar to sugar wharf phase 1 path tunnel. 30 years of tax and no use. Hard to believe this wasn’t a construction warranty issue back in 1993 or 94.
Or was it really a parent / kid safety issue back in 90s?
Click to expand...
The whole of that part of St Lawrence was created at same time and in those days School Boards were much more a part of the municipal government. I doubt strongly that the TDSB is paying the City for the tunnel and the City seems not to care it is under their road.
Northern Light said:
Read it, yesterday



Almost always.



I was just thinking of sending you a message to ask; since I knew you'd know.
Click to expand...
From the DC Park tender posting of August

David Crombie Park General scope of work includes but is not limited to:

b. Demolition and removal of small building: demolition and removal of small building with glass and metal structure that leads to underground route to adjacent school building across The Esplanade; building will be removed and capped with structural slab; no change to below-grade condition of tunnel connection.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top