Ok.....this one is now officially into AIC............but is so much bigger than it when I first discussed it above....
It had been envisioned in the midrise range previously............ no more.
We're now at 36 storeys.
Addresses formally include both 3130 and 3150 Danforth.
Architect: Arcadis
@Paclo
www.toronto.ca
From the above:
Site Plan (Danforth at bottom of image
Ground Floor Plan:
Development Summary/Site Stats:
Parking Ratio: 146 vehicle spaces to 483 units is 0.3
Elevator Ratio: 4 elevators to 483 units or 1 elevator per 121 units.
Comments:
Right off the bat, the combination of MTSA + other proposals nearby seeking new height precedents was bound to see others trying to get more density on their sites.
This site is south-west of an existing small, but likely more medium-sized park at build out, Madelaine Park. The shadows from this building will be manageable, but precedent will apply here on the next block east, which is directly south of the parkland in question.
That's not to suggest I oppose this proposal (subject to refinement), merely that continuing with reactionary planning where each precedent re-sets the bar means that the OP is virtually worthless and Secondary Plans not so much better.
We we want to open up this, or any other area to new development, and density that's fine....but we really ought to do it and cohesive, coordinated way.
Moving along....... The ground floor plan is one area that requires major refinement. A bit over 1/2 of the Danforth frontage is devoted to retail. Far too low.
The residential amenity program should be removed from the ground floor or shifted to the side streets; The lobby is both too large, and should, ideally, be accessed from Macey.
Danforth should be lined with retail here, and the ft2 of same should be increased by at least 1/2, if not 2/3.
Next, the floor plate is over guideline at 820m2, I'm flexible..........but if you want extra, you need to give extra.
Currently the proposal does not commit to tenure (though condo is not currently viable here); nor does it commit to any affordable housing.
@HousingNowTO will be dispatched to remedy this.
Over guideline floor plate, shadows on park? I want purpose-built rental, 5% affordable units at base, + community benefit on top.
Parkland. The application is silent on meeting this obligation, other than staff having request a micro park on site during the Pre-Application Consultation. (Why?)
The Aforementioned Madeleine Park is directly across the street to the north-west of this site. Said park is also incomplete, with SFH intruding into its footprint, making a for non-functional space.
Aerial View of Park, with subject site at the bottom-left of image:
There are 7 houses remaining within the logical, core footprint of this park; removing any of these could dramatically improve the programmable space in the park. Though not previously contemplated, removing any of the 3 homes on the west side of the cul-de-sac (and houses north thereof) beside the existing Catholic school site could help achieve an outsized gain by removing Madeleine Avenue, in whole or in part and added it to the Park.
The current park is 0.6ha.or 1.5 acres.
A completed 'core' Park would be 0.8ha or 2 acres:
An ideal park here is 1.35ha/ or 3.4 acres:
* note that the cut-out in the park above on the east (right) side is the current school yard for the school which could be thoughtfully integrated.
For an MTSA parking is moderately high.
Site may be a logical candidate for a small Green P lot to serve the broader area (within in the underground parking already proposed.
Elevator ratio is suspect.
Overall, good development site, proposal merits further exploration, but with significant refinement and community benefits.
