Toronto 368-386 Eglinton Avenue East | 34.17m | 11s | HPG | Kirkor Architects

PMT

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
3,976
Reaction score
8,652
Location
Turanna
368 EGLINTON AVE E
Ward 22 - Tor & E.York District

►View All Properties

To construct an 11-storey addition on the east side of the existing 13-storey rental apartment building. The existing building contains 148 dwelling units; the proposed adddition contains 96 dwelling units.

Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---

Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 17 188558 STE 22 OZ Jun 27, 2017 Under Review

Current site:
upload_2017-6-29_9-36-40.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-6-29_9-36-40.png
    upload_2017-6-29_9-36-40.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 1,837
Last edited:
Developer is The Howard Property Group, architect is Kirkor:
upload_2017-7-7_13-11-55.png


upload_2017-7-7_13-12-26.png


upload_2017-7-7_13-12-50.png


upload_2017-7-7_13-13-13.png


upload_2017-7-7_13-13-31.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-7-7_13-11-55.png
    upload_2017-7-7_13-11-55.png
    1,017.1 KB · Views: 1,302
  • upload_2017-7-7_13-12-26.png
    upload_2017-7-7_13-12-26.png
    1 MB · Views: 1,250
  • upload_2017-7-7_13-12-50.png
    upload_2017-7-7_13-12-50.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,246
  • upload_2017-7-7_13-13-13.png
    upload_2017-7-7_13-13-13.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,203
  • upload_2017-7-7_13-13-31.png
    upload_2017-7-7_13-13-31.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 1,214
Generalizing here, but Toronto architects typically don’t do a good job at making extensions of old buildings look like an evolution of that building. The new bit is simply tacked on. Feh.

42
 
So that is what they intended to do with that space, mystery solved.

There was active discussion some time ago in the Crosstown thread about it.
 
This public meeting will take place at 6:30pm on Wednesday, February 7 at the Best Western Roehampton Hotel (808 Mount Pleasant Road).
 
Are minimum separations the reason it's tacked onto the existing tower? It would look better as a fully separate new build.
 
It's tacked onto the existing tower because the property is only so wide: there's not unlimited underused land around this tower-in-the-park style building.

42
 
I don't buy that. I'm looking at the renderings and the addition bumps out to connect to the existing tower which suggests the property is wide enough for a separate mid rise with a 2 to 3 metre gap. The addition isn't narrow by any means either

It's obvious now they are maximizing sellable footage by cramming a balcony and units in the bump out. I'm not opposed to the towers touching each other but design it to look like separate towers instead of a connected Frankenstein. That would mean not putting a balcony there
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top