Toronto 48 Grenoble | 148.4m | 43s | Tenblock | Diamond Schmitt

[Northern Light]

From the Lobbyist Registry we learn that this block is in play.

Aerial Pic:

This is a mid-rise older apartment block, within the Flemingdon Park priority neighbourhood.

That this is in play indicates that the Crosstown and associated developments at the north end are clearly going to drive comprehensive renewal of this community.

The City should be out in front figuring out how to address long time community challenges (shortage of parkland, poor connections to neighbouring communities and the valley) as well as the state
of the TCHC buildings here.

Streetview:

With only 30M between this building and the site to the north, across the parking lot; I would have to imagine the proposal is to raze this 9-storey building.

Site size is ~ 6700m2/72000ft2

Certainly large enough for one tower, but probably two if sited correctly.

Edit to Add: I see I omitted the proponent here; which is Tenblock.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

The existing building is pretty handsome - has some nice understated modern details like the brick balcony frames. Shame it is likely doomed.

 

[RonThom]

Stone's throw from this other new application: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...damis-properties-diamond-schmitt.33096/page-2

 

[Amare]

At this rate, those homeowners north of Rochefort will be in for a handsome payday anytime soon now. If I had money i'd buy one solely just to hold onto it until a developer came along with an offer:

 

[RonThom]

At this rate, those homeowners north of Rochefort will be in for a handsome payday anytime soon now. If I had money i'd buy one solely just to hold onto it until a developer came along with an offer:

View attachment 374599

Not to worry, that "neighbourhood" of houses is protected from development forever thanks to being coloured yellow on a map, whereas all these apartment buildings can be torn down because they're orange or red on a map.

 

[Northern Light]

At this rate, those homeowners north of Rochefort will be in for a handsome payday anytime soon now. If I had money i'd buy one solely just to hold onto it until a developer came along with an offer:

View attachment 374599

It would frankly serve the City well to buy up this block here:

Its contiguous to Ferrand Drive Park, it would be large enough to support a soccer field, it hasn't yet been upzoned, which means it could probably be acquired for ~40-50M

Direct all parks funds from projects at or north of Grenoble to cover the cost.

Let the Eglinton stuff which will likely get the max densities go residential.

There is a need, as well, in my opinion to extend Ferrand *the road* south as these developments occur to improve connectivity within the community. It should at least reach Grenoble.

Oh, and someone change the name, it's really peculiar that what are really 2 different N-S streets and a connecting E-W street all have the same name!

 

[Northern Light]

Not to worry, that "neighbourhood" of houses is protected from development forever thanks to being coloured yellow on a map, whereas all these apartment buildings can be torn down because they're orange or red on a map.

View attachment 374600

That yellow will turn red here...........

 

[Undead]

While we're discussing the area writ large, is there any interest from the owners of 250 Ferrand to densify their site? Looks like a healthy 4-5 acres which could be redeveloped. Assuming it's viable.

 

[Amare]

Not to worry, that "neighbourhood" of houses is protected from development forever thanks to being coloured yellow on a map, whereas all these apartment buildings can be torn down because they're orange or red on a map.

View attachment 374600

That yellow will turn red here...........

This is one of the very few instances i'd support something like that because it doesnt make anysense to have a pocket like this around that area. The problem is "precedent" among other things: once you start, developers will start using this case as an excuse to coax the city into doing the same elsewhere. Then if they dont get their way, they'll start whining to the province.

 

[Northern Light]

While we're discussing the area writ large, is there any interest from the owners of 250 Ferrand to densify their site? Looks like a healthy 4-5 acres which could be redeveloped. Assuming it's viable.

I'm unaware of any offhand. But I haven't had any discussions w/said owners either.

The City would likely be receptive to more office space here and shifting parking underground; given the location, I'm not sure if the yield per sq ft is there.

You have a move nearby at Wynford to nix office in favour of residential; the City lacks enthusiasm for that.

Just plunking down a condo between the 2 office towers doesn't seem ideal either.

F

 

[Northern Light]

This is one of the very few instances i'd support something like that because it doesnt make anysense to have a pocket like this around that area. The problem is "precedent" among other things: once you start, developers will start using this case as an excuse to coax the city into doing the same elsewhere. Then if they dont get their way, they'll start whining to the province.

I'm for preserving (but not ossifying) the core of many SFH areas (permitting 4-plexing, multi-family rental etc; but retaining the gist of the scale).

But there is a real issue in Toronto with:

The Neighbourhoods designation coming right out to the arterial road.

What makes sense 3 blocks in, is hard to justify right next to rapid transit or even a bus stop.

There's also the problem of under-gridded areas, particularly north of Eglinton, where you have major streets 2km apart.

I'm prepared to see the yellow belt eaten into to make that 1km apart, with intensification facing the newly created road.

In this particular case, as you note, the entire thing really can go.

But in other areas, the key is to set out the principles that govern these things.

One principle has to be mid-rise on main streets as a starting point in most areas; appropriate carve-outs can be made for Heritage Conservation Districts or the like.

Precedent is governed by principle; the key is not being ad-hoc, but thoughtful and pro-active.

 

[Towered]

At this rate, those homeowners north of Rochefort will be in for a handsome payday anytime soon now. If I had money i'd buy one solely just to hold onto it until a developer came along with an offer:

View attachment 374599

Now that's wholesale blockbusting that I can fully support.

 

[innsertnamehere]

This is one of the very few instances i'd support something like that because it doesnt make anysense to have a pocket like this around that area. The problem is "precedent" among other things: once you start, developers will start using this case as an excuse to coax the city into doing the same elsewhere. Then if they dont get their way, they'll start whining to the province.

that would be a problem, why exactly? Sounds like a good thing to me.

 

[Undead]

that would be a problem, why exactly? Sounds like a good thing to me.

It's probably not the best from a city building/urbanist perspective to have detached houses and skyscraper condos with nothing in-between. This area can go because it's in a transit rich location, but I'd go easier on densification deep inside blocks, or the more remote ones.

 

[Amare]

that would be a problem, why exactly? Sounds like a good thing to me.

We all see how precedents go in this city. It's basically a carte-blanche to do whatever you want, wherever you want (that wherever being in a specific radius of where the change is happening) without much regard to the neighborhood characteristics, services, infrastructure, etc.

It would create more problems in many areas in the city which cant handle the growth.