Toronto 11 Pleasant Boulevard | 65.75m | 19s | Resident | BDP Quadrangle

[Northern Light]

The site tbh pose some questions or concern:

@Northern Light

- the site is narrow and would a skinny tower be "good planning"?

No.

- who would be the end buyer for these product given the ultra low parking space proposed...renter but given the neighbourhood is quite higher end.

Given the hints in the thread from @ProjectEnd and @Tuscani01 ..... I think one might reasonably infer that this proposal, as is, is very unlikely to go ahead.

As things stand, were this to be what comes out of the sausage making process, I don't foresee a market that would allow it to go ahead in the near term.

 

[Northern Light]

This one was the subject of a Settlement Offer to the last meeting of City Council. The Offer was accepted and the docs are now public.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-258662.pdf

From the above:

 

[Paclo]

Updated renderings of the endorsed settlement plan, heading to an OLT hearing scheduled to commence on December 8, 2025

 

[jmi22]

- the site is narrow and would a skinny tower be "good planning"?

We have been building dreary mega podium-tower masterplan "communities" for thirty years now, with continued failure. At what point are we going to admit we were wrong and embrace the varied, small lot development pattern that makes great cities great, from Paris to Tokyo to New York? If Cityplace is "good planning" than give me the "worst" planning we can muster.

 

[Northern Light]

We have been building dreary mega podium-tower masterplan "communities" for thirty years now, with continued failure. At what point are we going to admit we were wrong and embrace the varied, small lot development pattern that makes great cities great, from Paris to Tokyo to New York? If Cityplace is "good planning" than give me the "worst" planning we can muster.

I'm all for changing what we build, but lets be clear, tall and skinny performs worse financially than either tall and large, or short and skinny.

There are a host of reasons for that, which we can get into at some point, though lets not clutter this thread, bottom line, the economics are rarely there to support tall and skinny.

 

[jmi22]

I'm all for changing what we build, but lets be clear, tall and skinny performs worse financially than either tall and large, or short and skinny.

There are a host of reasons for that, which we can get into at some point, though lets not clutter this thread, bottom line, the economics are rarely there to support tall and skinny.

Absolutely, there are always going to be savings at scale, but it is not city plannings place to oppose building's on those merits as they had done with this proposal. If a builder wants to lose money, that's their business.
Also, I have never understood planning's absolute hatred of blank party wall conditions that are essentially guaranteed to be covered by a following build. It's just not that bad irl.

Edit: Just stumbled on this LinkedIn post quite relevant to the discussion, from a Van perspective. Apparently Jason Thorne found it insightful lol.