cityspace said:
On Yonge Street (or any other street in Toronto), it is a common practice for addresses to be continuous with no gaps along a street. This helps maintain consistency and clarity for postal services, emergency services, and residents or businesses seeking to locate specific addresses.
However, in some cases, gaps in address numbers may occur due to various reasons such as demolitions, mergers of properties, changes in zoning regulations, or land assembly for large-scale developments. In such situations, adjustments to address numbers may be made by municipal authorities to ensure consistency and compliance with addressing standards. Developers often assign a new, snappier name or address for the newly constructed development, such as "5959 Yonge St." The new name or address is typically used for marketing purposes and to provide a distinct identity for the new development. It helps in branding the property and making it more marketable to potential buyers or tenants.

My question: What happened to the original addresses previously occupying the site assembled here? Did they cease to exist?

P.S. Isn't it extremely unimaginative that the dealership roof isn't being utilized as a condo amenity? A terrace/green space connecting to the other amenity at the base of the podium would be an obvious great feature here. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

This is a great question. I'd reckon @Northern Light might know.
 
christiesplits said:
This is a great question. I'd reckon @Northern Light might know.
Click to expand...

Not sure what the City policy states, but I can probably dig that up.

But out of curiosity I thought we might use the City's mapping program to look at the current site of TD Terrace (160 Front)

1710337682362.png


The City continues to show all the original addresses, curiously, and I wonder if this is just a case of a pending update not having been done yet, but the all the original parcels of land continue to show as legally separate.

Do note, however, that 160 and 164 are assigned to the same parcel.
 
Northern Light said:
Not sure what the City policy states, but I can probably dig that up.

But out of curiosity I thought we might use the City's mapping program to look at the current site of TD Terrace (160 Front)

View attachment 547777

The City continues to show all the original addresses, curiously, and I wonder if this is just a case of a pending update not having been done yet, but the all the original parcels of land continue to show as legally separate.

Do note, however, that 160 and 164 are assigned to the same parcel.
Click to expand...

maestro said:
A property's legal description isn't the address. In my experience, the address no longer exist however remains as a historical reference listed as inactive
Click to expand...
The other addresses become available as a "convenience" address within the site, depending upon how many doors may face the various streets (are there retailers, townhomes, etc that could use them)? I site might also be subdivided at the end of the development process as well, each residential tower, an office tower, retail section, etc., in a multi-use complex) and each would have their own address, reallocated from those available from the assembly.

42
 
cityspace said:
P.S. Isn't it extremely unimaginative that the dealership roof isn't being utilized as a condo amenity? A terrace/green space connecting to the other amenity at the base of the podium would be an obvious great feature here. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

My neighbour's backyard pool "would be an obvious great feature" for me,.... except they'll likely to be pissed if they catch me skinny dipping in their pool! The Condo Building and Subaru car dealership building will be on 2 different severed property lots,... owned by two different entities,..

1710688010691.png




Here's an example that shows both North York Civic Center (5100 Yonge) and Meridian Arts Centre (formerly Toronto/NorthYork Centre for Performing Arts at 5040 Yonge) are both closer to Beecroft Road than Yonge St and their property lot has no Yonge St frontage but yet, they have Yonge Street addresses!

1710687857308.png
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
My neighbour's backyard pool "would be an obvious great feature" for me,.... except they'll likely to be pissed if they catch me skinny dipping in their pool! The Condo Building and Subaru car dealership building will be on 2 different severed property lots,... owned by two different entities,..
Click to expand...
😆 You're right, I'll concede that 'pride of ownership' aka 'This is mine, hands-off" mentality is at odds with with a shared space here. However still beats me why the design review panel didn't at least impose an off-limits green roof on the dealership...
 
cityspace said:
😆 You're right, I'll concede that 'pride of ownership' aka 'This is mine, hands-off" mentality is at odds with with a shared space here. However still beats me why the design review panel didn't at least impose an off-limits green roof on the dealership...
Click to expand...

Err,... any green roof on this 2-storey Subaru dealership won't be green for long,... since this condo building to the west will be 32-storey,... to the south, Times Group's 5800 Yonge will be 46, 48, 52 and 54 storey,.... and to the east, Aoyuan's M2M Phase 1 is at 34 & 36-storey,.... Phase 2 at 34 & 40-storey and Phase 3 at 38-storey (these two phase are extremely doubtful and new Developer will likely propose more height and density!)

1710766247796.png
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
Err,... any green roof on this 2-storey Subaru dealership won't be green for long,...
Click to expand...
At face value, I could agree with your argument. But you do realize (I hope) it is likely a stretch when you consider the implications. That is, the green roof on the condo itself and the green grounds in front (which would be perfectly complemented by the dealership's) would also be considered misguided designs. I still think the dealer's roof, sticks 'in' like a cut thumb or tree stump...
 
Last edited:
cityspace said:
At face value, I could agree with your argument. But you do realize (I hope) it is likely a stretch when you consider the implications. That is, the green roof on the condo itself and the green grounds in front (which would be perfectly complemented by the dealership's) would also be considered misguided designs. I still think the dealer's roof, sticks 'in' like a cut thumb or tree stump...
Click to expand...

Designs,... these Condo streetscape renderings are exactly that - just design,.... not reality. These Condo streetscape renderings always feature oversized fully grown trees - tree-porn,... full green lawn and green roof.

In reality, the trees that get planted,... if any at all <cough>RioCanYongeSheppardCentre<cough> are just skinny young toothpick trees that often don't survive more than 2-3 years and need to be replaced <cough>BazisEmeraldPark<cough>.

In reality, the lawn will often feature X-shaped dirt path as too many people walk short-cuts through the grassy area,... and the strip of about 3 feet adjacent to the sidewalk will be a permanent mud-pile - this area is prone to be dog toilet for all the condo dogs with urine killing the grass.

In reality, Green roofs have the best chance of becoming reality,... but it often depends on plant species selection, plant once and hope they grow thick enough to discourage weeds,.. to be in their best shape, they should require some maintenance, but it's often out of sight out of mind,....
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top