mjl08 said:
Quick question for policy planning nerds like @Northern Light and @HousingNowTO.

Is the mandated angular plane purely a Toronto phenomenon? Is the 45 degree angle the best practice in other cities, or is the angle smaller?
Click to expand...

Other cities have shadow and transition policies, but Toronto documented the most rigid version of them in 2010 --- and it all kind of got a little out-of-control when something that was supposed to be a "guideline" --- started to be treated by some Community Planners at City Hall as a fixed & mandated requirement -

"Initially introduced into the fabric of the city back in 2010, the guidelines sought to achieve “transition” and “articulation” and using angular planes seemed to achieve both: it achieves transition because it creates an imaginary diagonal line between the “sacred” low-rise neighbourhoods and higher density nodes and “articulation” because it prevented the building from just extruding up for 10 storeys (6-11 storeys, to be exact) and that is exactly what made them so expensive to build, and less affordable to the end user..."

storeys.com

We Need to Take a Step Back From Angular Planes. Pun Intended.

Angular planes create buildings that are hard to build, cost more, and bring less units to the market compared to a more rectangular building.
storeys.com storeys.com
 
We visited some of those (stupid) Kingston Road sites with FairchildTV (Chinese Media) when we talked about the flawed "Angular Plane" policy last Summer...

 
mjl08 said:
Quick question for policy planning nerds like @Northern Light and @HousingNowTO.

Is the mandated angular plane purely a Toronto phenomenon? Is the 45 degree angle the best practice in other cities, or is the angle smaller?
Click to expand...

@HousingNowTO has given a very good answer, but I'll try to add just a bit to it.

Angular planes are one way of examining how to minimize undesirable shadows or the appearance of intrusion to privacy (privacy in the City is generally an illusion, but that doesn't mean most people are comfortable with someone else's balcony looming above their back yard. )

There are other ways in which Toronto and most other cities manage these. There is of course, simple exclusionary zoning (there are entire U.S. cities/towns that we might call 'yellow belt'.)
Beyond that, however are tools like, height restrictions, setback requirements, separation distances, permissions/restrictions on balconies or even window orientation. A variety of these are in use in varying degrees.

That said, angular planes are mentioned in various other cities zoning by-laws, (though by no means all of them); but are, generally less restrictive, either by way of being flexible, or by way of simply a less challenging standard. (a 60 degree plane is in use in Halifax)

There are multiple issues here, any attempt by me to discuss them all is over simplification by at least 1/2, but 1) Is the standards themselves, as written; 2) is how those standards are treated.

On the first, the guidelines here are too absolute as written. They fail to acknowledge things even ardent advocates of height limits and opponents of shadows will admit. (a building on a north side of a street or park will cast next to no shadow on same, so why are we measuring the angular plane here?) There may be other good, sound reasons for setbacks, but the angular plane is simply the wrong tool in some spots.

On the second, Toronto's standards have been hardened in large part due to the existence of the OLT which is a relatively unique appeals system, so far as I'm aware, in North America.

We could rightly critique that Toronto (the City) is too inflexible, on the other hand the OLT, in part, makes it so.)

****

Final note, the angular plane in Toronto is going to go away/become more flexible in the next few months, at least if Planning gets its way; though the Urban Design unit may put up a bit of a fuss. Still I expect the new standards, due out soon will be more flexible.
 
Last edited:
Aplus23 said:
Every motel & strip Plaza's in Scarborough is being developed on for condos
Click to expand...
Anything like that in the whole GTA is gradually getting proposed for redevelopment. Housing demand means we have to use land better than we have been, and property owners know they'll like be able to profit providing more places to live.

42
 
renx.ca

Equiton buys Vicinity Condos dev. property on Toronto’s Queensway

A vacant half-acre lot formerly occupied by a gas station and car wash at 875 The Queensway in Toronto, which will be the site of the proposed 150-unit Vicinity Condos, has been acquired by Burlington-based Equiton.
renx.ca renx.ca

Sandstones is a proposed Icon Architects-designed 13-storey condo with more than 300 units, as well as approximately 9,000 square feet of retail space at grade, at 2257 Kingston Rd. in Scarborough.

An initial ZBA submission has been made and a second is expected to be submitted by next week.

It’s anticipated Sandstones’ units will go on sale late next year. Occupancy is expected to begin in late 2027.
Click to expand...
 
The Developer may still be in talks to purchase the remaining lots. I believe an offer may have been put up, however some of the business want at least double/close to triple than what's being offered.

There's may also be an easement - right of way - that one of the unsold business possess, that could change the dynamic of things.
 
AlbertC said:
renx.ca

Equiton buys Vicinity Condos dev. property on Toronto’s Queensway

A vacant half-acre lot formerly occupied by a gas station and car wash at 875 The Queensway in Toronto, which will be the site of the proposed 150-unit Vicinity Condos, has been acquired by Burlington-based Equiton.
renx.ca renx.ca
Click to expand...

Someone needs to follow up on his articles, if I happen to miss his post! LOL

Resubmitted Sept '23:

Revisions outlined in the Planning Letter:

1708799081508.png

1708799116983.png

1708799143045.png

1708799163691.png


No new renders, just elevations:

1708799210081.png

1708799230678.png


1708799246785.png
 
New Render, from Equiton's website:

1715328747138.jpeg


www.equitondevelopments.com

Sandstones Condo | Contemporary Scandinavian Designs

A beach-chic condominium with Scandinavian design elements.
www.equitondevelopments.com www.equitondevelopments.com

Webpage above suggests 2027 occupancy - no permits applied for as yet, if for no other reasons than this one does not yet having its ZBA. (no evidence of an SPA application than I can see)

@Paclo

Further minor resbumission in Apiril '24.

From the Cover Letter:

1715329100756.png

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top