IMG_20160224_081859.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20160224_081859.jpg
    IMG_20160224_081859.jpg
    444.3 KB · Views: 1,545
interchange42 said:
It's like developers think this is the Entertainment District or Manhattan just south of Central Park or something.

It really is remarkable how many proposals there are in this area. It cannot be more clear that the Relief Line needs to be built as far north as Eglinton ASAPP (as soon as politically possible). The Yonge Line is going be beyond insane.

42
Click to expand...

I just don't get the appeal of living in a super dense community and still having to commute to work. On top of that, the super long blocks between Yonge and Redpath are an annoyance to get around. I just can't imagine the experience one all the open spaces are filled with large, high coverage towers.
 
maestro said:
I just don't get the appeal of living in a super dense community and still having to commute to work. On top of that, the super long blocks between Yonge and Redpath are an annoyance to get around. I just can't imagine the experience one all the open spaces are filled with large, high coverage towers.
Click to expand...
Eglinton Connects will address the concern of the super-block. They will look to make pedestrian connections cutting through between Yonge and Redpath.
 
Now that I think of it, I remember reading one of the Midtown In Focus pdf docs dealing with new street and midblock connections the city wanted to see in the area, as it relates to the broader Eglinton Connects project.

I wonder if the city might raise a big objection to this proposal. Have a look at this doc and down at page 140
http://www1.toronto.ca/City Of Toronto/City Planning/Urban Design/Files/pdf/M/2014-07-16 Midtown in Focus_PART 6 Streets and Blocks.pdf

Here's a screenshot of the page, and specifically the orange line showing an extension of Dunfield north of Eglinton. Looks like the city wants to see a new shared street, which if realized it would probably have to run right through where the current house is located and where they're proposing to build this new tower.

Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 5.23.22 PM.png


Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 5.29.06 PM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 5.23.22 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 5.23.22 PM.png
    342.4 KB · Views: 1,463
  • Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 5.29.06 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-02-24 at 5.29.06 PM.png
    1.8 MB · Views: 1,509
Wow that is a very good catch @Atlantis .

Do you think City Staff is aware of this? I would hate to see a Stollerys' type of situation here where a developer knowingly accelerates demolishing to avoid later 'problems' with the city. These midblock connections are vital for the future of this neighbourhood.
 
No idea if city staff are aware of this, but presumably planning would look at this proposal in conjunction with their Midtown in Focus / Eglinton Connects documents? Maybe I'll email the city planner to ask.
 
City staff will be aware of it, sure, but the issue is less how the connection moves south from Roehampton (where it can be accommodated) and more how it connects through 90 Eglinton to Eglinton Avenue East.

I often wonder how much time and money is wasted 'studying' things with no clear idea of how they'll be implemented or who will pay...
 
I imagine the city just can't build streets as they please... wouldn't they have to own the land? or force a developer to reconnect a street through development?.. Are there not forces beyond their control in such planning matters.
 
Front Page article:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/07/36-storey-infill-proposed-midtown-tower-park-site
36-Storey Infill Proposed on a Midtown Tower-in-the-Park Site

In the Planning Department's Preliminary Report on the application, it states that "City Staff do not support the proposed building in its current form", and it expands upon that by listing various issues, mostly stemming from the form created by placing the new building up against the corner of the existing one:

City Planning Staff have generally not supported this form of intensification within the Apartment Neighbourhoods as it tends to create or exacerbate negative impacts from 'slab style' buildings.
Click to expand...

Rendering:

21716-75002.jpg
 
At Council this past week, the City voted to send representation to the OMB to oppose this development.

42
 
Wow - what a slender tower! Only 408 square metre floor plates instead of the usual 750. The two-floor height increase is being allowed in compensation for the reduction in the podium and tower floor plates.

122.8 m high. @DonValleyRainbow

42
 
There are many reasons why this tower is flawed. I`ll give you one, two elevators for a 38 storey tower. After work line ups for elevators in the lobby will be long and dogs won't be able to hold out for the wait for an elevator down.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top