WislaHD

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
9,871
Reaction score
9,152
Gotta love that Broccolini went in with a preservation plan in mind for the Victorians. Big thumbs up for recognizing them as potential assets to build a vision around rather than just 'in-the-way' of another glass box proposal.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,296
Reaction score
48,238
We here at UT got a very robust preview of this one..............but still worth saying; *Docs are Up*

I will focus on the Planning Rationale Report for this one, though if I notice a new render I'll tack it on.

1637222282989.png


Note to Arch Firms:

Elevation Drawing are preferred right-side up.

We don't generally build'em sideways; don't make me look at'em that way, please!

The following image is rotated to be sensible!

1637222470437.png



1637222625809.png
 

Attachments

  • 1637222854136.png
    1637222854136.png
    315.4 KB · Views: 54

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,296
Reaction score
48,238
Rough ride coming for this one based on the Preliminary Report to the next meeting of TEYCC.

The language is only one step removed from a refusal report.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-223805.pdf

From the above:


1649345217766.png

1649345276284.png

1649345327998.png


While staff are proposing to go forward w/consultation on this application, they want a planning study for the area:

1649345379394.png
 

Amonavis

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
38
Reaction score
44
I’m thrilled they came out against this project so strongly. There are hundreds of other streets they could build a couple condo-like towers on. Linden St is very charming, and, although maybe a poor man’s version of a street in Cabbagetown, it has a lot of charm still, which would be ruined by additional “apartment towers” taking over the entire street and Selby too.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,845
Reaction score
5,179
This project would take a wrecking ball to lot of elder buildings established there in its current form. Unless they can build up on and/or utilize those existing structures, this project should be a no go regardless of the heights of the buildings they wish to eventually make, IMO.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
12,287
Reaction score
25,694
I’m thrilled they came out against this project so strongly. There are hundreds of other streets they could build a couple condo-like towers on. Linden St is very charming, and, although maybe a poor man’s version of a street in Cabbagetown, it has a lot of charm still, which would be ruined by additional “apartment towers” taking over the entire street and Selby too.
There aren't though.
 

YIMBY519

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 7, 2019
Messages
99
Reaction score
185
I’m thrilled they came out against this project so strongly. There are hundreds of other streets they could build a couple condo-like towers on. Linden St is very charming, and, although maybe a poor man’s version of a street in Cabbagetown, it has a lot of charm still, which would be ruined by additional “apartment towers” taking over the entire street and Selby too.
There really aren't at all. I just don't agree or share your same "thrill" considering the proposition this project has offered. So you would rather surrender a new day care, new public park, community land trust/community space, in kind affordable housing, heritage preservation of non-listed properties and best-in class sustainability measures to preserve a "charming" street character that is maybe 150 feet of cohesion? This looks like it's meant to preserve that charm, just with high-rises above. It can do both, and that is the way forward.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,296
Reaction score
48,238
I’m thrilled they came out against this project so strongly. There are hundreds of other streets they could build a couple condo-like towers on. Linden St is very charming, and, although maybe a poor man’s version of a street in Cabbagetown, it has a lot of charm still, which would be ruined by additional “apartment towers” taking over the entire street and Selby too.
There aren't though.

While PE and I would vary somewhat on how many good development opportunities there are in this City........I would concur w/him here that there are not 'hundreds' of other sites, most particularly that are comparable in terms of location, supportable density etc etc.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that we ought to retain lots of the best 'character/charm/heritage' areas, much moreso than many here. But this is far from the finest example of intact, preservation-worthy character, yet the proponent has gone some distance to preserve much of the 'feel' just the same.

But it's hard to talk about the overall charm of Selby when it looks like this:

1649428136075.png


I would gladly agree that the development of decades past on Bloor addressed this street poorly, but that's where we are.........

Huntley is somewhat more intact........but still.......

This is what it looks like north of Selby:

1649428253449.png


To the south, the scale is more humane, but it's hardly intact heritage w/the Rogers complex off to the west side:

1649428298465.png


*****

All of which is to say, I see lots to like in this proposal.

I do feel the park concept is problematic, as I discussed in a previous post; and I think there's some room to tweak (improve) how the heritage aspects are handled.

But I think an outright rejection here is overkill.

Given proximity to the subway, given what's already been done in the area and what neighbours the site and given the positives w/this proposal, I think it merits further consideration and the yellowbelt zoning here
should be re-thought.

* edit to add, looking at the streetview above, I do hope, one day, there's a reclad of the back of Greenwin Square (low rise portion fronting Selby) we can mitigate some of that blight.
 
Last edited:

Amonavis

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
38
Reaction score
44
While PE and I would vary somewhat on how many good development opportunities there are in this City........I would concur w/him here that there are not 'hundreds' of other sites, most particularly that are comparable in terms of location, supportable density etc etc.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that we ought to retain lots of the best 'character/charm/heritage' areas, much moreso than many here. But this is far from the finest example of intact, preservation-worthy character, yet the proponent has gone some distance to preserve much of the 'feel' just the same.

But it's hard to talk about the overall charm of Selby when it looks like this:

View attachment 391251

I would gladly agree that the development of decades past on Bloor addressed this street poorly, but that's where we are.........

Huntley is somewhat more intact........but still.......

This is what it looks like north of Selby:

View attachment 391252

To the south, the scale is more humane, but it's hardly intact heritage w/the Rogers complex off to the west side:

View attachment 391253

*****

All of which is to say, I see lots to like in this proposal.

I do feel the park concept is problematic, as I discussed in a previous post; and I think there's some room to tweak (improve) how the heritage aspects are handled.

But I think an outright rejection here is overkill.

Given proximity to the subway, given what's already been done in the area and what neighbours the site and given the positives w/this proposal, I think it merits further consideration and the yellowbelt zoning here
should be re-thought.

* edit to add, looking at the streetview above, I do hope, one day, there's a reclad of the back of Greenwin Square (low rise portion fronting Selby) we can mitigate some of that blight.
Your pics kind of show the worst of Selby with the No Frills entrance and you didn’t show the character of Linden Street at all. I don’t think your pictures represent the charm of the area at all.

I stand by my point that there are many streets with a lot less heritage that they could build highrises on. I think it would look horribly out of place here, with James Cooper mansion and the Selby already there. Way too much density there.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,845
Reaction score
5,179
But it's hard to talk about the overall charm of Selby when it looks like this:
From those streetviews the adjacent buildings that are being highlighted are not slated to be part of this proposed development though. And will look just as imposing and ugly when all is said and done. So demonstrating the blight that exists around this block isn't the best argument for nuking the block, IMO.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,296
Reaction score
48,238
From those streetviews the adjacent buildings that are being highlighted are not slated to be part of this proposed development though. And will look just as imposing and ugly when all is said and done. So demonstrating the blight that exists around this block isn't the best argument for nuking the block, IMO.

I don't think this proposal could be reasonably described as 'nuking' the block.......

****

Be that as it may, I wasn't arguing that the unfortunate appearance of the north side of Selby was a compelling reason to pursue this development, I was arguing that it diminished the argument for preserving the status quo.
 
Last edited:

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,845
Reaction score
5,179
I don't think this proposal could be reasonably described as 'nuking' the block.......

****

Be that as it may, I wasn't arguing that unfortunate appearance of the north side of Selby was a compelling reason to pursue this development, I was arguing that it diminished the argument for preserving the status quo.
A lot of building appears to be going under the wrecking ball with this current proposal. And altering the block as depicted in the renderings they might as well be nuking it and then repaving it over with something else...

...that said, I'm not against any development here. Just that the development needs to be very careful how they preserve what is already there.
 

Top