Paclo said:
The database has been updated to reflect the Minor Variance posted above:


The changes are as follows:
  • Storey count increased from 11 to 13-storeys
  • Height increased from 38.25m to 44.85m
  • Total units increased from 97 to 107
  • Total vehicular parking decreased from 43 to 42
Axonometric perspectives of the revised 13-storey proposal:
View attachment 540443
View attachment 540444

Additionally, the project is now listed as under construction.
Click to expand...
117 units, not 107...
 
Taken 28 February.

IMG_7676.jpeg

IMG_7677.jpeg
 
Hopefully this will act as a catalyst for development on nearby properties. Further east at Ossington & Bloor is also severely under-densified for a subway node.
 
flonicky said:
It would be nice if more of these developers would learn how to design a fine-grained streetscape. Street level on this one is junk compared to what was there.
Click to expand...
It's not about "learning", it's about what makes the most money within the applicable rules. The City chooses not to govern retail bay width, and since larger spaces generally lease to big, corporate, businesses, that's what developers go for. I'm putting this more in the City's court than private industry. If we were forced to create smaller, narrower, retail units we would. We're not, so we don't. Just more of Planning's myopic focus on things that don't matter (height, setbacks, shadows, etc.) and not giving a lick about the things that do (ground floor experience, unit sizes, elevator ratios, etc.).
 
ProjectEnd said:
It's not about "learning", it's about what makes the most money within the applicable rules. The City chooses not to govern retail bay width, and since larger spaces generally lease to big, corporate, businesses, that's what developers go for. I'm putting this more in the City's court than private industry. If we were forced to create smaller, narrower, retail units we would. We're not, so we don't.
Click to expand...

With great respect PE; you just wrote a polemic for the most prescriptive zoning on earth based on an argument that private industry will never, ever build anything properly or in the public interest without being forced to and micromanaged by the state.

I expect better of every human being walking the face of this earth. Not naively, but in the way that people hold the door for someone frail or carrying stuff even though the law doesn't require it. We shouldn't have to threaten people with fines or jail for being an @##@#.

People should be able to look beyond the bridge of their own nose for the greater public good. If builders can't do that, that's on them.

ProjectEnd said:
Just more of Planning's myopic focus on things that don't matter (height, setbacks, shadows, etc.)
Click to expand...

All of the above do matter. To say otherwise is completely wrong without reservation or equivocation.

ProjectEnd said:
and not giving a lick about the things that do (ground floor experience, unit sizes, elevator ratios, etc.).
Click to expand...

I know plenty of people in City Planning who care about these things. I have asked about elevator ratios and been told that City Planning have no mechanism under law to impose these.

It's a building code issue.

Have you put in your submission for the 2030 code changes? Link for you:

Code change requests

cbhcc-cchcc.ca cbhcc-cchcc.ca
 
Last edited:
This is a topic that's long fascinated me. I agree w/ NL that there are some ppl in the City who care, but it comes down to priority and what takes precedence. Which leads me to PE's excellent point about too much focus from city staff on stepbacks, heights, shadows, and not enough on ground floor experience, materiality, etc. This has been my experience with city staff for over a decade. The city should take a very active approach in helping make the ground floor conditions and experience as great as possible. And they need to hold developers feet here to the fire, because if developers had their way... they will build whatever is profitable, which is not really retail.

A few considerations:
  • Type G and B loading req really limit what you can do with retail. A lot of this is on the City; and if and how this ends up being resolved, who knows. Whether it's in the form of smaller loading trucks or using public streets/laneways for garbage... Even NL, you have posted recently about this - https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-1196-yonge-114m-32s-woodcliffe-kpmb.30670/post-2088265
  • Double or single stairs - this also takes away space from retail on ground floor. This is a Building Code issue, so out of the City's hands
  • Parking ramps - this is driven (no pun intended) by market demand and location. Putting in a parking ramp takes away virtually any salvageable space for retail. Combine this with a loading bay and garbage room reqs and it's over for any site less than 14,000 SF. This is a combination of City and developer responsibility. City has done it's job by removing parking minimums; although in some areas, there continued to be a req for some parking.
    • Alternatively, you can do parking stackers to save space. But I've never heard of positive experiences from people using them or developers incorporating them
  • Amenity - City needs to stop it with the amenity. Completely controlled by them. Let the developer choose if and how much amenity to provide. Often times it gets thrown in the ground floor, taking away space from retail
  • Gaudy lobbies - this is almost all on the developer. I get why they like illustrious lobbies, but totally unnecessary. Virtually every new building along Charles could have included retail at base. Instead they have unnecessarily large lobbies
  • Services/utilities - transformers, gas meters, louvres, intake/exhaust vents, etc. These all need to go somewhere and don't help retail. This is a combination of building code, city reqs and developer choices. For developers that don't care, you'll see this stuff thrown wherever. Some of the new builds around church/dundas are notorious for this
  • Heritage - protecting certain heritage buildings (that have no merit being protected) is sterilizing not only development but any potential future retail user. The heritage retention as part of a redevelopment also adds to cost - which could be recouped in certain pockets in downtown, but not necessarily at Gerrard and Main St.
  • Stepbacks/Cantilevers - each stepback or cantilever can introduce a transfer slab and columns that jeopardize the usability, open span space and height of retail uses. The city needs to rethink their focus here.
Retail today (and for the last few years) in an urban market, in a mixed use development has generally been a losing proposition. I can't remember the last time I looked at a proforma with a profitable retail use, unless it's in an ultra hot retail area like King West, Yorkville or Downtown Yonge - and even then, not easy to make it work (maybe PE or NL you have seen otherwise?). Things like e-commerce, cost of construction, lending standards (don't forget banks require much higher equity for retail than for res development), and COVID have really thrown a wrench into it. And you need the residential density not only to help offset the loss incurred by building the retail, but to also help sustain it going forward. So this focus from city staff on stepbacks, heights and resulting shadow impacts for 20 minutes on a sidewalk are really at the expense of a great ground floor. Imagine if they instead put greater time and effort into how to make the best ground floor, and let a few buildings go taller and no podium/stepback.

A good and reliable way for the city to incentivize and secure good retail space is evident in the North York Centre Secondary Plan. How did they do it? Simple - exempt the retail from GFA calcs. Everyone gets more res GFA and you get retail on the ground floor. Incentives like this work. Take a walk along Yonge St between Sheppard and Finch any day and/or time of the week and it's one of the liveliest places in the entire City. Not to mention many of the units are narrow and occupied by independently owned retailers. And for new/future secondary plans, you can tweak the incentive to capture more retail or res, depending on the area. Maybe instead of a 1 retail SF for 1 res SF, you can do 2 SF of res for every 1 SF of retail.

1715888038218.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top