Ugh, I couldn't even fathom having to live so close to all those poor people. They should just implode the whole place anyway, am I right?
 
Another thought: If just down the street Lanterra's latest proposal is asking for up to 56s, suddenly 42s here looks downright pathetic. Go taller Mr Bitton! 55s! (As long as the architect changes to __.)
 
From Councillor Wong-Tam's email newsletter:

395 Bloor Street East

Proposal: Zoning Bylaw Amendment

Open House and Community Consultation

· Date - Thursday, January 27, 2011

· Location - 525 Bloor St. E - St. Simon The Apostle Anglican Church,

· Time - 6:30pm - 9:00 pm

Summary: The application proposes a 42-storey mixed use building comprising a 2- of commercial. Retail space at grade and on the second floor.

Additional background information available: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-32563.pdf
 
The issue of insufficient parking was noted after the first two submissions, so their solution the third time around was to eliminate all previously planned parking?
And if they've already submitted a proposal for 80 spots I'm guessing there isn't an issue of digging down because of the subway (as mentioned in an earlier comment).

Correct me if Im wrong but I believe the subway runs a bit north of bloor at this point along the route.
 
There are examples of projects providing a main floor receiving area then 6 or so floors of parking before the condos begin. They could provide parking if they could negotiate a height increase with the city to accomodate. This is done all the time in other cities.
 
No thanks to above grade parking in order to get taller buildings. Above grade parking also affects buildable density as well. It's one of the things that encourages developers to go underground where floor area ratio isn't applied.
 
Correct me if Im wrong but I believe the subway runs a bit north of bloor at this point along the route.
The subway runs right under the front portion of this property. There is a "subsurface easement" for the subway across the entire front of the property, to a depth of several feet back from Bloor. Construction on the surface, above this easement, is not prohibited, but would not be allowed to interfere with the subway. I don't know if it would be feasible to have vehicular access from Bloor, with a ramp from the street running above this easement, back to the rear part of the property. That would be an engineering question.
 
Rendering originally from Spring/Summer 2011 edition of Ward 27 News from City Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) posted on the very indepth-and-quite-decent- the toronto blog.

395-403-Bloor-Street-East-proposed-condo-tower-rendering-from-city-councillor-newsletter.jpg
 
Wow..what a change in political power...i reckon that the anti-development Kristyn Wong-Tam is the complete contrast to the pro-development ex-councilor Kyle Ray when it comes to wheeling and dealing in her ward.
 
Love it! And to clarify the previous posts about the subway: Sherbourne station is one of only 2 stops on the entire B-D line that is south of Bloor (the other one is Kipling, FYI). It's also one of the deepest stops. I used to live in St. Jamestown, so I used Sherbourne station quite frequently. I'm not sure at what depth the tunnel is actually at, but it's probably around double the depth of the cut and cover sections of the B-D line. This may be an advantage for the developers, as there may be a considerable distance between ground level and the roof of the subway tunnels.

Also, a direct underground connection to Sherbourne station isn't likely. The station box's west end is directly underneath Sherbourne St, with the box stretching eastward. If they wanted a subterrainian connection, they would need to go through an existing condo, and connect at the mezzanine level. Not worth it I think for the amount of headache it would cause.
 
The Gov'nr Pub has shutdown. There are For Lease signs in the former Metro Paradise and Saisha store fronts. I am not sure if this is a sign of the upcoming development. I would love to see this stretch get some better retail, but it seems the stretch is jinxed.
 
Page + Steele does it again!

That is, does a shameless copy+paste of a previous design, and with a tweak here and a window there: viola! And you people dare call aA repetitive.
 
Ugh, I couldn't even fathom having to live so close to all those poor people. They should just implode the whole place anyway, am I right?

It's obvious you have a problem with poor people when you emphasis in your post the word poor to convey your dislike of them.
 

Back
Top