Toronto 4875 Dundas Street West | 150.09m | 45s | Forest Gate | Graziani + Corazza

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
32,555
Reaction score
91,953
Location
Toronto/EY
This new to AIC application seeks to redevelop an existing 10-storey, 56 unit purpose built rental on Dundas, just east of Cordova.

Site as is, per Streetview:

1715341719068.png


The App:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Renders and other docs:

1715341909103.png


1715341956777.png


Site Plan:

1715342020422.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1715342123789.png




Project Stats:

1715342191267.png



Parking Ratio: 214 residential spaces to 488 units: 0.45

Elevator Ratio: 4 elevators to 488 units, one elevator per 122 units.

Comments:

The height is being justified here by the PMTSA designation. But nothing else nearby is anywhere near as tall with the site across the street just having settled at 29s. I do not see 45s flying w/o extraordinary benefits.

Speaking of the PMTSA designation, that parking ratio is very high for a development predicated on being walking distance to the subway. (distance is ~600M btw)

They would also like an above-guideline 800m2 floor plate. That might be an otherwise reasonable ask, but in the context of asking for vastly more height than recent precedents, I don't see them getting near the proposed height AND and over-sized floorplate.

@Paclo is flagged

@HousingNowTO is flagged for high-density residential proposal, PMTSA, extraordinary ask that could only be remotely justified by an above Community Benefit contribution to affordable housing.
 
Last edited:
Towered said:
Yes!! This is what I've dreamed of for Islington Village for ages!!
Click to expand...

You dreamt of a G+C building?

Fascinating.

Edit: Since I'm here, I will say the podium isn't all that bad; the landscaping is incorrectly positioned right up against the building, based on the render, this position means there would only be a single retail entrance, for a ~5,000ft2 unit. That pretty much makes it a chain drug store.

Too large for the vast majority of retail businesses.

The retail is aligned shallow and parallel to the street which means window film in the majority of cases.

***

The tower only has the one render from a distance, I will withhold judgement.
 
IMG_6208.jpeg
Also adding this site to our “towers over +750 m2 floorplate” list.
 
I like it. This area needs this kind of intensification, it's such a nicely kept area, walkable, nice streetscape with art and nice lights in the winter. Hope the retail is a restaurant. People living here would likely walk west to Cordova and down the steps by the Tridel buildings to Islington to get to the subway, that stretch needs to be inviting and have some ground level retail. Not sure what is planned in the podium of Westerly, but there's a chance to make this a nice walkable area. The walk along Islington to the TTC would not be a nice one. I think the more of these newer units that are build in this neighbourhood, the more 'middle class' it becomes. There is a stigma with this area (mostly with Mabelle), that I think has started to go away with the Tridel towers, but that mix of SES in the neighbourhood is good.
 
toaster29 said:
I like it. This area needs this kind of intensification, it's such a nicely kept area, walkable, nice streetscape with art and nice lights in the winter. Hope the retail is a restaurant. People living here would likely walk west to Cordova and down the steps by the Tridel buildings to Islington to get to the subway, that stretch needs to be inviting and have some ground level retail. Not sure what is planned in the podium of Westerly, but there's a chance to make this a nice walkable area. The walk along Islington to the TTC would not be a nice one. I think the more of these newer units that are build in this neighbourhood, the more 'middle class' it becomes. There is a stigma with this area (mostly with Mabelle), that I think has started to go away with the Tridel towers, but that mix of SES in the neighbourhood is good.
Click to expand...
I agree, very good bones of the old village remain but Dundas Street itself holds the area back a great deal. Very loud and fast it deadens the otherwise nice retail strip. Considering the amount of off street parking being constructed a removal of parking lanes on Dundas for cycle tracks and a more extensive tree boulevard would do wonders for the strip. Islington is quite a hostile end to the village, but with some traffic calming and slip lane removal it could be...ok.
 
I disagree with this proposal. I am aware that attempts at demolishing this building were made in the past and have been rejected to maintain a certain affordability in the area. The proposal talks about 'affordable housing' which in today's market will not be the case. I am not a fan of kicking out existing residents for the sake of development profit.

Also, this area has a lot of empty lots already and more lots around Kipling. If new buildings need to be constructed, it would make more sense to construct in areas that have no development than areas that already have existing development and people living there that will be affected by this change.

As a resident of this building, I am against this change especially when I have seen multiple attempts at getting rid of this building and its inhabitants to make a profit off this short term flip. Ownership of the building has changed multiple times and it seems everyone is constantly trying to make a profit over the livelihood of those that live here. Please reject this proposal on behalf of the residents that live here and with the logic provided above.
 
I agree there are underused sites that should go before buildings like this. But they can redevelop only what they own. And they're required by law to provide relocation assistance and rental replacement units for existing tenants. Granted, it's a royal pain in the ass for current tenants.
 
Buildingcomments said:
As a resident of this building, I am against this change especially when I have seen multiple attempts at getting rid of this building and its inhabitants to make a profit off this short term flip. Ownership of the building has changed multiple times and it seems everyone is constantly trying to make a profit over the livelihood of those that live here. Please reject this proposal on behalf of the residents that live here and with the logic provided above.
Click to expand...

I can completely understand your position as a resident.

That said, a couple of things.

1) Imploring other forum users to reject this is largely pitching to the wrong audience, while there are planners on this forum; it will be the planner on this application, along w/the area councillor who will take a first crack at this, and those are the people you need to approach.

2) The planner, but Council as well have to be mindful of planning law in Ontario and the potential appeal of any decision here to the Ontario Land Tribunal. In general the law here favours permitting some sort of redevelopment here subject to a variety of planning rules, as well as those noted by @Undead above.

****

Now, that does not mean this application will be approved as-is; nor that any redevelopment will take place, even if permission is granted. An 'entitlement' or planning permission to do something does not mean a developer will automatically proceed.

****

It would be my suggestion that you read the comments of forumer's here on where this proposal may run afoul of planning rules and formulate arguments around those and forward them to the Planner and Councillor. Should your argument prove compelling, its unlikely to spike the application outright, but may see it altered in such a way through the approval process as to make it less likely to go ahead, at least in the near term.

My other suggestion would be to have a fall-back position, to secure the best possible benefit for existing tenants should you end up facing relocation. Its sometimes possible to negotiate enhanced moving costs and rent-gap payments as part of the approval process.

Ultimately, its important for tenants to be ready, should they need to move; whether or not that's 'fair'. But in the meantime you can certainly make a case about the appropriateness of this proposal (or lack thereof) as it is to staff and Council.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top