Toronto Long Branch Tower | 134.6m | 39s | Toronto Standard | Studio JCI

[christiesplits]

I could see a development similar in scale to Linx, also across from a GO Station, which tops out at 27 storeys.

Linx Condominiums | UrbanToronto

Linx Condominiums, Toronto by 1, Turner Fleischer

urbantoronto.ca

 

[argus]

... hoards of 50+ year old angry boomers who bought their houses for 7 raspberries in the 60s, plus all kinds of inane time-consuming city regulation just to convert 1 unit into 4. The maximal returns are being had in condos because after fighting hoards of angry boomers..

We "boomers" are actually in our sixties and we're not all angry. People who are in their fifties are Gen-Xers and would not have been buying houses in the 1960's - unless they were buying doll houses for 7 raspberries.

 

[Northern Light]

I could see a development similar in scale to Linx, also across from a GO Station, which tops out at 27 storeys.

Linx Condominiums | UrbanToronto

Linx Condominiums, Toronto by 1, Turner Fleischer

urbantoronto.ca

Certainly that would be closer in fit; but in the case Linx, you have 30 storey towers directly across the street (Main Square) in terms of context; and you also have Main Station (TTC) right there as well.

The Long Branch location isn't, I don't think, all the comparable.

Which, is not an argument against intensification here. I just think the proposed jump is a bit extreme, and I'm also concerned when one looks at the overall community context that its not only out of scale, but would also end up being car-oriented if it were successful. I've been out that way a bunch, and while it's not ex-urban Markham, it's also not a walking and transit-oriented community, today, to me.

I thought the previous proposal was quite solid, and only needed a few tweaks. (see @Amare 's comment about vehicle access from Lake Shore).

I'd entertain a bit more............I'm just not sold on this being the spot for what's currently proposed, at least not yet.

 

[argus]

I agree putting humongous amounts of housing in essentially the middle of nowhere is a bad idea, the recent proposals for 4 x 50 storey towers out on some brownfield site in Pickering next to the 401 comes to mind, and is extremely bad land use. Same goes for the 60 storey towers planned for the bad boy warehouse off the 400 in Vaughn. However Long Branch (and the Lakeshore villages generally) are not that, and have the best bones for intense urbanization of any area outside the Old City, with the exception of maybe Weston + NYCC.
In terms of infrastructure, the majority of Long Branch, and the neighborhoods of south Etobicoke as a whole have been shedding population for 50 years. Sewage, roads and streetcar capacity are currently overbuilt for the amount of people living with them. The reason for the tract this site specially is in showing modest population growth is a result of the point tower built slightly further west down Lakeshore, which shockingly, was also lambasted by residents as being 'out of place'.
View attachment 611298

Shedding population - possibly, but poorly defined by the map? I'm curious if the source acknowledges that the blue zones simply reflect families with fewer children in single family dwellings?

 

[jmi22]

But not to worry, the developer didnt take any of this into account when proposing vehicle access right in front of an intersection that's already a mess at various times of the day. As i've mentioned before, i'll go as far as saying their vehicle access proposal is outright dangerous.

Completely agree, it is a tough spot though but how else could vehicle access be provided without buying up the rest of the lots on Lake Shore to 41st, or one of the house on Branch Ave to the south?

Unrelated note, but has there ever been a forum/discussion about a potential rework of the Browns Line overpass of the rail corridor? I've always wondered if a more typical straight tunnel under the tracks was possible (ala Dufferin/Queen). Would simplify intersections in the area, get rid of the crash prone ramps and free up a whole lot of property on Lake Shore for a more continuous streetscape.

 

[Northern Light]

Completely agree, it is a tough spot though but how else could vehicle access be provided without buying up the rest of the lots on Lake Shore to 41st, or one of the house on Branch Ave to the south?

In the very first post in this thread, I said this:

The builder here would have to surrender some of the land, the way the building is currently massed, this should be feasible.

But absolutely, additional sites to the east and west would have to be bought out, either by the builder or the City.

In the former case, the costs are recoverable if the City commits to the right upzoning.

Unrelated note, but has there ever been a forum/discussion about a potential rework of the Browns Line overpass of the rail corridor? I've always wondered if a more typical straight tunnel under the tracks was possible (ala Dufferin/Queen). Would simplify intersections in the area, get rid of the crash prone ramps and free up a whole lot of property on Lake Shore for a more continuous streetscape.

I can't find any record of such a thread; though I'm sure the idea has come up before.

But by all means start such a discussion.

Some commentary on the current state of the intersection here:

Anna writes: The entire Brown’s Line at Lake Shore intersection “needs a redesign” - Preserved Stories

A previous post is entitled: Update regarding Dead Man’s Curve at Brown’s Line and Lake Shore Blvd. West. Commentary: An EARLIER warning would work much better A local resident, Anna, has offered the following comment, and has given me permission to post it: I appreciated hearing your thoughts...

preservedstories.com

I know the City looked at different options a long time ago............

***

Found it....

City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents

The City's Mayor, and City Councillors representing each of the city's 44 wards, make up Toronto's City Council. The council is the main governing and legislative body for the city. City councillors also sit on committees and on community councils in the area where they have been elected.

www.toronto.ca

Not sure if the full EA is online, but TPL has the original in print:

Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427 Brown's Line Interchange modifications : class environmental assessment : environmental study report

Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427 Brown's Line Interchange modifications : class environmental assessment : environmental study report, Lea Associates. , Toronto Public Library

www.torontopubliclibrary.ca

 

[rdaner]

So much depends on perception! My experience from being here to check out the lovely Humber campus is that this is a rapidly transitioning neighbourhood towards the walkable end of the spectrum. All of the retail on Lake Shore is of the Main Street variety and many of the sfh on either side hide basement apartments and multiplex conversions. Even going up on Browns Line there are numerous signs of medium term intensification. One can live here car-free quite fine.

One of the factors that has caught many of guard is the increase in the number of students at Humber. The Cultural Hub alone has added many 1000s.

 

[jmi22]

In the very first post in this thread, I said this:

View attachment 611462

The builder here would have to surrender some of the land, the way the building is currently massed, this should be feasible.

But absolutely, additional sites to the east and west would have to be bought out, either by the builder or the City.

In the former case, the costs are recoverable if the City commits to the right upzoning.



I can't find any record of such a thread; though I'm sure the idea has come up before.

But by all means start such a discussion.

Some commentary on the current state of the intersection here:

Anna writes: The entire Brown’s Line at Lake Shore intersection “needs a redesign” - Preserved Stories

A previous post is entitled: Update regarding Dead Man’s Curve at Brown’s Line and Lake Shore Blvd. West. Commentary: An EARLIER warning would work much better A local resident, Anna, has offered the following comment, and has given me permission to post it: I appreciated hearing your thoughts...

preservedstories.com

I know the City looked at different options a long time ago............

***

Found it....

City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents

The City's Mayor, and City Councillors representing each of the city's 44 wards, make up Toronto's City Council. The council is the main governing and legislative body for the city. City councillors also sit on committees and on community councils in the area where they have been elected.

www.toronto.ca

Not sure if the full EA is online, but TPL has the original in print:

Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427 Brown's Line Interchange modifications : class environmental assessment : environmental study report

Gardiner Expressway/QEW/Highway 427 Brown's Line Interchange modifications : class environmental assessment : environmental study report, Lea Associates. , Toronto Public Library

www.torontopubliclibrary.ca

Thank you very much for the information. My bad for missing the your post on the laneway, the greatest casualty of it would be the Empanada Company on the corner lol. Really good spot but sat right in the middle on the needed R.O.W

 

[hbf92]

I would bet money that we will be seeing more proposals of similar density in the immediate vicinity around Long Branch GO. Maximum 15-minute headways and electrified service is not too far away - LSW is going to be one of the first corridors to have this rolled out, service on the corridor has already increased and likely to continue to do so as ONexpress takes over operations of GO on Jan 1st, 2025. I'd also imagine this is just a zone and flip project for these guys, and this won't be built until 2029+ where GO will be a very different type of transit service.

 

[Northern Light]

service on the corridor has already increased and likely to continue to do so as ONexpress takes over operations of GO on Jan 1st, 2025.

There is a service increase planned for January, at one point, it was to be quite large, but I'm not clear than ONexpress will have the full head count necessary to deliver on that. Alstom was way behind in training.

To be clear, there will still be a service increase in January, barring something shocking. I'm just not sure it will be as large as once hoped, we'll have to see.

 

[1Ć0]

From bullpen batory report (as of Q4 2024) -

 

[Paclo]

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

Resubmitted with the following stat changes:

• Storey count decreased from 43 to 39
• Height decreased from 143.4 to 134.6m
• Total residential units decreased from 549 to 490
• Total vehicular parking decreased from 72 to 71
• Total bicycle parking increased from 436 to 558

Updated renderings:

 

[jmi22]

Much more slabbish

 

[Northern Light]

The Cover Letter provides an example on the importance of proof reading..........after all, you don't really want to write XXX letters to the city!

Revised Ground Floor/Circulation:

Simplified:

What a terrible layout...........wow.

****

The 4-floor/ 59 unit reduction may satisfy Planning, TBD.......... but I don't see a market to build that either as condo or as rental.

This vehicle access off Lakeshore remains a serious issue here, it really needs to come in off a laneway at the rear of the property and/or the side.

The proponent should frankly withdraw the proposal and stop throwing good money after bad. They need to sell to someone who can think through what can be built here and how.

I suspect, in the current market, that might involve taking a loss.....

 

[dplainview]

Curious, what's wrong with the ground floor layout?