There was a presentation on this in early March: https://www.dropbox.com/s/k6vq3j1gdco7531/2023-03-08-Community Meeting_FINAL TO PRESENT.pdf?dl=0

Not a lot that would be new to us here, but the next steps and timeline slides I will bring forward:

1681484566818.png


1681484601382.png
 
...that's getting into "pushing daisies" timeline territory. That is, some of us might be doing just that by the time this gets finished. >.<
 
Lots of PARKDALE HUB content inside the item...

PH3.6 - Housing Now Initiative - 2023 Progress Update​

Agenda Item History 2023.PH3.6

Agenda Item History 2023.PH3.6
secure.toronto.ca


at City Hall next week... including "90 affordable rental homes, for 99 years" - with focus on "non-profit developers" as partners...

Will take us a while to crunch these kinds of numbers.

1682010728244.png


1682010769939.png


1682010832613.png

1682010870620.png
 
New rendering was added to the database. The rendering is taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning. The total unit count changed from 110 units to 171 units. The story count changed from 10 storeys to 16 storeys. Height changed from 38.00 m to 54.50m. Visitor biking changed from 8 parking to 11 parking. Bike parking changed from 122 bikes to 202 bikes/

PLN - Architectural Plans - 4of4 - Parkdale Hub_Architectural Set_Part 4-3.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - 4of4 - Parkdale Hub_Architectural Set_Part 4-3a.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - 4of4 - Parkdale Hub_Architectural Set_Part 4-3b.jpg
 
Art Tsai said:
New rendering was added to the database. The rendering is taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning. The total unit count changed from 110 units to 171 units. The story count changed from 10 storeys to 16 storeys. Height changed from 38.00 m to 54.50m. Visitor biking changed from 8 parking to 11 parking. Bike parking changed from 122 bikes to 202 bikes/

View attachment 501518

View attachment 501519

View attachment 501520
Click to expand...

There we go! Much better!

Not quite as large as I suggested:

Northern Light said:
So, you reminded me to look........

I reviewed the arch. plans.

Assuming we stayed relatively conservative. Kept all the setbacks off Queen the same, and only bumped the height of the western block at the the smallest existing floor plate, based on the layouts provided for the 10th floor; and assuming we went only as tall as the TCHC building to the south (20s), that would net 10 additional floors and 100 additional units.

I think that would be a perfectly reasonable ask; perhaps @HousingNowTO can go wrap on some people's doors and strongly suggest as much.

I'm relatively pragmatic and understand the various trade-offs made to get things done........and respect many of them; but here, this really is under-sizing the site, even if one respects most or all of the key principles than Planning is going for here.
Click to expand...

Still, a dramatic improvement.

I will note they went with my suggested footprint of ~10 units per floor, this mimicked my idea, it's just a bit shorter in the storey count.

The render makes it appear the same height as the TCHC building to the south, but that building is 20s........... hmmm.
 
Last edited:
Still too modest imo - should have quite a bit more density than what is being proposed.
 
This is what really grinds my gears about Staff -- they just get hung up on numbers almost entirely arbitrarily: Functionally, there's no discernible difference between a 16-storey tower and a 26-storey tower for someone standing at the front door of the building; either way, when you look up, you see building. The only difference between those two specific outcomes is that more than a hundred fewer people get housed by Staff getting their way.

Staff and residents groups often deploy various straw men in response to that perspective -- they'll talk about servicing capacity (which is a knowable, quantifiable item that is covered by technical experts in the rezoning process) or shadow impacts (which is a knowable, quantifiable item that is covered by technical experts in the rezoning process) or wind impacts (which is a knowable, quantifiable item that is covered by technical experts in the rezoning process) -- when really they are just trying to defend their own arbitrary and subjective aesthetics. Point that out to them and they get defensive, but it doesn't make it not so!
 
ADRM said:
This is what really grinds my gears about Staff -- they just get hung up on numbers almost entirely arbitrarily: Functionally, there's no discernible difference between a 16-storey tower and a 26-storey tower for someone standing at the front door of the building; either way, when you look up, you see building. The only difference between those two specific outcomes is that more than a hundred fewer people get housed by Staff getting their way.
Click to expand...

To be fair, unless you have inside knowledge on this one, we don't know what the 'ask' was from CreateTO, and whether Planning staff balked at any such ask, etc.

I would also assume Councillor Perks office was very much in on the conversation; and in any reality one likes, civil servants have bosses, and getting them irritated w/you is not generally a good career move.

(I don't know what input the Councillor's office gave here, one way or the other).

****

I know what pitch I made, and they literally came up just a hair short, so to speak. I pitched roughly what they did, at 20s, we got 16s.


1692724771670.png


This height diagram shows the 20s TCHC to the south of this proposal, I pitched going roofline to roofline.

I thought it was politically sellable which is a key marker (again, whether one likes that or not).

Looking at this, it appears there's either a subtle grade change as we go north to Queen or there is slightly more height per floor in this proposal vs the TCHC to the south.

That said, I think this can be easily bumped another 2 floors and still meet the intent and spirit of what I pitched.

Since this is only zoning, I would go ahead and get the 16s, and when this comes up for SPA, bump it up to 18s via CoA.
 
another question I have is why the building on the east side is limited to six storeys when it should be at least double that height
 
dgto said:
another question I have is why the building on the east side is limited to six storeys when it should be at least double that height
Click to expand...
The City of Toronto has "other priorities"...

(2019) "Toronto is on the verge of unveiling a sweeping proposal to restrict density on a long stretch of Queen Street West... The plan will cover the part of Queen between Bathurst and Roncesvalles, a 3.5-kilometre strip that takes in West Queen West and the former Parkdale Village, establishing new zoning policies while also seeking to protect the area under heritage rules. According to a draft city document, new and renovated buildings would be limited to six storeys, up to 20 metres in total, with the first three storeys allowed adjacent to the sidewalk and the remainder set back."

www.theglobeandmail.com

Despite increasing clamour for housing, Toronto works to restrict density on iconic strip of Queen St. West

Queen has long been an urban magnet, its appeal surviving changes in consumer tastes and an increasingly gentrified city
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
 
@dgto

While @HousingNowTO is correct in noting the six-storey height limit along Queen West in general, in this area......

The more easterly site would be unlikely to get significant height regardless.

It's a very small footprint with limited lot depth.

In order to go taller, you would need to employ setbacks, and the site would, for all intents and purposes be non-viable.

This is what's immediately south of that more easterly building:

1692746302798.png


I don't foresee that being demolished; nor do I foresee anyone accepting an 12-storey streetwall right across the lane there.

Further, there's also a public square/parkette space there, and blocking all the morning sun would not be desirable.



Not every site is suited to height for both economic and other reasons.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top