HousingNowTO
Senior Member
It all depends on how seriously City Council and City Planners want to hold on to legacy planning-policy like -
- "Ensuring appropriate transitions to Neighbourhoods"
- "Mitigating impacts of privacy and overlook"
Toronto 21 Broadview | 40.27m | 12s | Streetcar | CEBRA architecture
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
SPA Docs are up:
Docs are u/l as at July 5/22 ; date on Docs is 6/28/22
Looks like the design is holding together really nicely:
We've held on to CEBRA, to 12s and 340 units
Of note from the Cover Letter:
On Landscape:
The Plant schedule claims to be 100% native..........it's not quite; but good ambition, they've included a few near-natives, and a couple of cultivars; still, it's a very good list.
Soil/Planting Conditions:
Out of 11 trees
100% will have acceptable soil volumes, with none actually failing to exceed minimum guidelines by at least 10%
100% are irrigated.
7/11 will feature Silva Cells. The area w/o does feature a large soil volume in softscape, so it should be an entirely reasonable choice to do w/o.
Pretty Solid.
Docs are u/l as at July 5/22 ; date on Docs is 6/28/22
Looks like the design is holding together really nicely:
We've held on to CEBRA, to 12s and 340 units
Of note from the Cover Letter:
On Landscape:
The Plant schedule claims to be 100% native..........it's not quite; but good ambition, they've included a few near-natives, and a couple of cultivars; still, it's a very good list.
Soil/Planting Conditions:
Out of 11 trees
100% will have acceptable soil volumes, with none actually failing to exceed minimum guidelines by at least 10%
100% are irrigated.
7/11 will feature Silva Cells. The area w/o does feature a large soil volume in softscape, so it should be an entirely reasonable choice to do w/o.
Pretty Solid.
artyboy123
Senior Member
Extra renderings were uploaded to the database; however, no new changes to the renderings. Only minor information is changed. The total parking space was reduced from 102 parking to 97 parking. The total building height changed from 39.97m to 40.27m.
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
Taken July 24:
AlbertC
Superstar
Toronto condo residents trying to stop a different condo from being built nearby
Residents of a mid-rise condo building in Toronto are trying to stop a different mid-rise condo from being erected nearby, ironically claiming that...
www.blogto.com
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,725
- Reaction score
- 25,637
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
WOW, there's a real NIMBY example! Reminds me of the folks at 60 Colbourne who objected to 65 King (the Google Building) a few years ago. Just as those at 30 Church (built in the early 1980s) objected to 60 Colbourne!Toronto condo residents trying to stop a different condo from being built nearby
Residents of a mid-rise condo building in Toronto are trying to stop a different mid-rise condo from being erected nearby, ironically claiming that...
(75 and 45 The Esplanade are a similar pair; 75 was only built a couple of years ago but still find the proposed height of 45 too much! (The actual form of 45 is maybe a reasonable thing to complain about, though I hear it is under revision.)
Northern Light
Superstar
Toronto condo residents trying to stop a different condo from being built nearby
Residents of a mid-rise condo building in Toronto are trying to stop a different mid-rise condo from being erected nearby, ironically claiming that...
That's sad and funny.
Sad, because it's one of the nicest proposals we've seen over the last couple of years and a pretty reasonable scale for the area; so getting up in arms over this, seems like 'really?'; Makes me think someone should send them a note on one of the mid-rise proposals held up by Nimbys which then came back as a hirise in a re-submission.
However, I find the trolling of the Nimbys by Jack quite hilarious.
Leasties
New Member
This is next level NIMBYism.Toronto condo residents trying to stop a different condo from being built nearby
Residents of a mid-rise condo building in Toronto are trying to stop a different mid-rise condo from being erected nearby, ironically claiming that...
A mid rise building similar in size to your own and across the street is going to destroy the neighbourhood.
They should be thankful it’s not a proposed 40 stories due to proximity to the OL station.
flonicky
Active Member
To be fair to the people in that condo, they've had a front row seat to Streetcar's inability to deliver. 
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
Also lost my eyesight rolling my eyes so hard at that story
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Going to re-post our assessment from last year's Public-Meeting earlier in this thread...
"Majority of Complaints and Concerns came from Owners of the low-rise Single-Family Homes on LEWIS STREET, who were concerned about Shadow, Overlook, Traffic & Parking.
There were also some Complaints and Concerns from the Condo loft owners at 68 BROADVIEW and 90 BROADVIEW about Shadow, Construction noise, Traffic & Parking.
STREETCAR has a lot of experience dealing with the local Councillor and Planners... so they will make some version of this proposal work.... eventually..."
"Majority of Complaints and Concerns came from Owners of the low-rise Single-Family Homes on LEWIS STREET, who were concerned about Shadow, Overlook, Traffic & Parking.
There were also some Complaints and Concerns from the Condo loft owners at 68 BROADVIEW and 90 BROADVIEW about Shadow, Construction noise, Traffic & Parking.
STREETCAR has a lot of experience dealing with the local Councillor and Planners... so they will make some version of this proposal work.... eventually..."
tripwire
Active Member
I find it disappointing that Fletcher is joining/leading this NIMBY-ism.
Northern Light
Superstar
To be fair; that's not what the piece says.
It says Fletcher initiated the 'working group' that was to liaise between the developer and the neighbourhood.
Such groups are common, Councillors are almost always the organizing force; let me introduce A to B and see if they can work stuff out.
I don't see any actual quotes from Fletcher in the piece unless I missed them.
***
That said, Paula is a twit. LOL
GabrielHurl
Active Member
Someone has done a really nice paint job on this disused house - there's a raccoon hiding behind the tree there
Northern Light
Superstar
Appealed to the OLT in March, this one will head to the next meeting of TEYCC in the form of an Appeals Report recommending staff attend in opposition:
From the above:
Comments: On Built Form Planning is just plain wrong here. I think this one of those proposals on which most of us here agree and for which we have collective enthusiasm, even if the adjacent SFH were to hold on a bit longer, I don't think these issues play. But I also think its important to note that much of that SFH is surely on its way out, and to plan accordingly. The density of East Harbour, and the MTSA here, will dicate intensification along the Eastern Avenue frontage, and that will push north. Protecting demolition fodder is not a reasonable action here.
On Streetscape./ROW, Planning has a fair point, whether that ROW ceding is sacrosanct is a matter of debate, but normally if the City has laid out such an obligation, prior to development, an application must cede the required space.
I hope this one makes it out the other end of process looking a lot like it does now and is of comparable quality at the end.
From the above:
Comments: On Built Form Planning is just plain wrong here. I think this one of those proposals on which most of us here agree and for which we have collective enthusiasm, even if the adjacent SFH were to hold on a bit longer, I don't think these issues play. But I also think its important to note that much of that SFH is surely on its way out, and to plan accordingly. The density of East Harbour, and the MTSA here, will dicate intensification along the Eastern Avenue frontage, and that will push north. Protecting demolition fodder is not a reasonable action here.
On Streetscape./ROW, Planning has a fair point, whether that ROW ceding is sacrosanct is a matter of debate, but normally if the City has laid out such an obligation, prior to development, an application must cede the required space.
I hope this one makes it out the other end of process looking a lot like it does now and is of comparable quality at the end.
Last edited: