Toronto 1111 Danforth Avenue | 45.85m | 13s | Core Development | Studio JCI

Families next to people renting out studio apartments. Kind of interesting combo of demographics being targeted as the prospective tenant mix.

Average unit size is 509 sf, due to the high number of studios. I'm not sure I have seen any other mid-rise building proposed like this, especially at a shoulder area of downtown rather than downtown proper.
 
Last edited:
Families next to people renting out studio apartments. Kind of interesting combo of demographics being targeted as the prospective tenant mix.

Average unit size is 509 sf, due to the high number of studios. I'm not sure I have seen any other mid-rise building proposed like this, especially at a shoulder area of downtown rather than downtown proper.
Those unit counts are all just placeholders,,, as far as we can tell, something to trade away during the haggle without losing too much GFA / Height.
 

Core has proposed a co-living building of approximately 120,000 square feet and 190 units at 1111 Danforth Ave. It’s hoping to get approval before the end of 2023, with construction to start in the first quarter of 2025 and completion in Q2 2026.
 
CFB334F7-BB98-407C-9954-1930993018DD.jpeg
0F1F6CD4-12BB-4888-B874-353A85C0AA3E.jpeg
 
Last edited:
New renderings are updated in the database. The total unit count was reduced from 228 units to 208 units. Total height changed from 31.04m to 32.30m. Finally, the total parking space changed from 12 parking to 19 parking.

Rendering taken from the architectural plan via rezoning submission:

PLN - Renderings or Perspective Drawings - DEC 13  2022-1.jpg


PLN - Renderings or Perspective Drawings - DEC 13  2022-2.jpg


PLN - Renderings or Perspective Drawings - DEC 13  2022-3.jpg
 
This is one of the weirdest Unit breakdowns I have ever seen:

1676417992091.png


Not a single one bedroom; only two 2 bedroom units, but 144 studio, and 62 3brm.

The parking wonky too, more spaces for visitors than residents. That does happen when you drop parking to near zero, but still looks odd:

1676418163783.png



***

There are some additional setbacks above the heritage facade.

***

Now this is interesting.............anyone see this 'ask' before?

@ProjectEnd ; @innsertnamehere; @ADRM

1676419207136.png


Ok......a couple of interesting streetscape notes.

1) The City has made its all too common request to remove the non-standard decorative brick sidewalks in favour of the humdrum usual. They are getting pushback. (The revised landscape plan still shows them)

2) Weird tree species list.............mostly native......no invasives.......but weird.

Dominated by Black Oak, a rare Savannah species in the GTA which is present where you see those prescribed burns in High Park, Rennie Park and down by the Humber every year; this is because the unique savannah habitat is one that is a product of fire that suppresses competing tree species and provides a unique understory. I don't know if ever seen them used at a large scale as street trees. They might do well. The plans show good overall planting conditions and many oak species do well as street trees. I'm not opposed.

They also show Black Cherry, that could be messy; Cherry can also do well with enough soil volumes.
 
It’s Co living so it’s a bunch of fancy rooming houses basically. The 3+ bed units are often 4 bed units where each of the bedrooms is rented out individually, basically.
 
It’s Co living so it’s a bunch of fancy rooming houses basically. The 3+ bed units are often 4 bed units where each of the bedrooms is rented out individually, basically.

Ahem, you're right here, answer the question I asked would ya? LOL
 
Now this is interesting.............anyone see this 'ask' before?

@ProjectEnd ; @innsertnamehere; @ADRM

1676419207136.png

I've not seen exactly this, but have seen other asks somewhat like it. It really depends on whether you had a Transportation Planner who's above or below the age of about 40 (generally nothing good happens from the above set), and what area you're in. We've had projects where we've offered at our own cost to do, broadly, Vision Zero stuff, and had Staff say "nope, we want DIPS standards, give us suburban-ass shit" and we've had others where Staff have to their credit pushed us to go further.

There's basically zero coordination or alignment on this stuff (which is unsurprising given the general state of leadership in both Transportation Planning and Transportation Services), which is of course a shame.
 
1682713783256.png


Letter/Motion from Councillor Fletcher passed at P&H yesterday -

"The Planning and Housing Committee request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Housing Secretariat, in consultation with Houselink/ Mainstay Community Housing and the local Councillor, to review and report on all options to realize the redevelopment of 1117 Danforth as affordable supportive housing, including opportunities as part of the ongoing redevelopment of 1095-1111 Danforth Avenue."

Exploring expanding the parcel to the east to rebuild and incorporate the adjacent not-for-profit housing provider's lands into the CORE development proposal...

LINK - https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.PH3.22



1682714186985.png
 
View attachment 472909

Letter/Motion from Councillor Fletcher passed at P&H yesterday -

"The Planning and Housing Committee request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning and the Executive Director, Housing Secretariat, in consultation with Houselink/ Mainstay Community Housing and the local Councillor, to review and report on all options to realize the redevelopment of 1117 Danforth as affordable supportive housing, including opportunities as part of the ongoing redevelopment of 1095-1111 Danforth Avenue."

Exploring expanding the parcel to the east to rebuild and incorporate the adjacent not-for-profit housing provider's lands into the CORE development proposal...

LINK - https://secure.toronto.ca/council/agenda-item.do?item=2023.PH3.22



View attachment 472911

Great! (Seriously) but not to throw a wrench in this........but I see a much larger opportunity here............

Let's see who owns the land immediately to the east of this site:

1682714770926.png


Oh hey, there's an entity the Councillor should have some pull with............and it's currently a 1s, non-descript building.

Hmmm, whose next door to that?

A provincial government owned, site with a 1s building so valuable to the LCBO that it's missed every rebranding/reno cycle this century......., and a parking lot:

1682714890938.png


***

Taken on its own the 1117 Danforth site is only ~8,000ft2

But add in the City's site next door and its suddenly over 20,000ft2

1682715041865.png


That can be built out way more economically and deliver a lot more (affordable) housing.

It also affords access to the maximum area height precedent:

1682715097559.png


The LCBO site to the east is not strictly necessary in terms of economies of scale, but is certainly a tempting target with another ~16,000ft2 of under-utilized land area.
 

Back
Top