Toronto 1230 The Queensway | 49m | 13s | Starbank | Turner Fleischer

[Gman8901]

Received a notifier for a new application for development on the Queensway. Address is 1230 - North side of Queensway at Culnan. 12 stories. I don't think we have a thread yet.

Application

Architectural plans available.

It's on the site of an existing BMO bank.

 

[rdaner]

Thanks. Holy parking. lol!

 

[Gman8901]

I noticed. Most of the development on the queensway seems to contemplate a more dense but suburbs living style - a car at least per unit.

I live in the area and love the intensification - but we need to start working on transit ASAP.

 

[Northern Light]

The Docs for the Above.

Height: 12s

Proponent: Starbank

Architect: Turner Fleischer

@Paclo ; @3Dementia

Renders:

Site Plan:

Ground Floor Plan:

Description:

***

***

***

Parking ratio of 102 (resident) spaces to 150 units gives 0.67 which is quite high.

Elevator Ratio: 2 elevators to 150 units which one elevator to every 75 units which is good.

 

[Amare]

Much more appropriate scale for The Queensway compared to the two loads of garbage proposed close by on Kipling and Queensway.

The parking ratio is not ideal at all, but asides from that I see nothing wrong with this one just yet.

 

[jmi22]

I noticed. Most of the development on the queensway seems to contemplate a more dense but suburbs living style - a car at least per unit.

I live in the area and love the intensification - but we need to start working on transit ASAP.

Queensway BRT should have been finished 5 years ago but I'm sure we will start doing preliminary studies in 2050 once the street looks like 5th avenue and congestion is at a standstill. The Toronto way

 

[Northern Light]

Queensway BRT should have been finished 5 years ago but I'm sure we will start doing preliminary studies in 2050 once the street looks like 5th avenue and congestion is at a standstill. The Toronto way

While I agree that transit and other necessary services and infrastructure always out to be in place before population growth, we have to be clear that the City does not choose to grow, for better or worse, those decisions are made by the Federal and provincial governments through immigration levels, temporary foreign workers and students, as well as Provincial Planning Law.

The City has some limited means to apply a holding by-law to various sites, but if they were to venture to do so in each case that came up where there was not sufficient sewer, water, transit, school, hospital or housing capacity, virtually all development in the City would be halted.

I hasten to add there is an incredible amount of transit construction ongoing in the GTA. Its only that its long overdue and catching up to where demand was 20 years ago, and that its openings are delayed, its construction mismanaged and in some cases routes and capacity are sub-optimal. But I digress! LOL

We can't ask the City to approve unlimited density and build even more transit (as if they could keep up) when they simply don't have the money available. People are also already flipping out over the level of construction on roads/transit in this City, imagine what would happen if we doubled it?

 

[jmi22]

While I agree that transit and other necessary services and infrastructure always out to be in place before population growth, we have to be clear that the City does not choose to grow, for better or worse, those decisions are made by the Federal and provincial governments through immigration levels, temporary foreign workers and students, as well as Provincial Planning Law.

I agree, the city does not regulate how many people come to the city, but it does have the ability to direct where they settle within the city.

And half of one of our two subway lines being surrounded by a sea of buildings that rarely venture north of 10m in height is simply a refusal to use the levers available at the municipal level to manage population growth and transportation capacity.
Money for transit expansion is limited, but we could probably get away with drastically less investment if we just let more people live near the infrastructure we already have.

 

[Undead]

Problem is the infrastructure we already have is not sufficient for the number of people we already have. And besides, there's a shit ton of approved units in Toronto and all across the region that developers are sitting on because "the market isn't there yet to build" aka "we're too greedy to accept current prices."

 

[Northern Light]

I agree, the city does not regulate how many people come to the city, but it does have the ability to direct where they settle within the city.
View attachment 609666
And half of one of our two subway lines being surrounded by a sea of buildings that rarely venture north of 10m in height is simply a refusal to use the levers available at the municipal level to manage population growth and transportation capacity.
Money for transit expansion is limited, but we could probably get away with drastically less investment if we just let more people live near the infrastructure we already have.

Yonge Street is lined with hirise nodes and proposals for more.

There's an entirely new Civic Centre being built at Kipling, significant new/proposed density near High Park and at Dundas West, Mirvish Village at Bathurst, and substantial density proposed at Pape and extant and more coming at Main and points east.

Lets also point out........those main roads are now mostly six-storey or more, as-of-right, and the adjacent SFH areas are now mostly 4s as-of-right, with multiplex permissions.

I'll grant those last moves are fairly recent, but they are done.

****

I'd make another point, Line 1 and Line 2 are both close to capacity at key points, hence the 1.5B expansion of Bloor-Yonge, another similar project at St. George that will follow, expansion of Spadina Station also set to get underway, and then there's the Ontario Line.

I think its a bit off to imagine that we can stack another 100,000 people on or adjacent to Line 2 (or Line 1) at most points and not run into capacity constraints that will cost $$$ to alleviate.

 

[jmi22]

Problem is the infrastructure we already have is already not sufficient for the number of people we already have. And besides, there's a shit ton of approved units in Toronto and all across the region that developers are sitting on because "the market isn't there yet to build" aka "we're too greedy to accept current prices."

In the case of the Danforth section of line 2, yes over crowding would be a big issue following densification, should the OL not be under construction. But there is a whole lot of subway corridor with room to move more people that isn't seeing much growth, Bloor from Old Mill to Islington comes to mind.

Shockingly, builders do in fact have to have a hope of turning a profit in order to secure capital to build. I don't see why everyone thinks developers are somehow exempt from the same economic restraints as every other business owner. Nobody expects a resteraunt to sell a plate they lose money on, but building a tower for a loss is an assumed moral necessity of builders. It's peculiar.

 

[jmi22]

Yonge Street is lined with hirise nodes and proposals for more.

There's an entirely new Civic Centre being built at Kipling, significant new/proposed density near High Park and at Dundas West, Mirvish Village at Bathurst, and substantial density proposed at Pape and extant and more coming at Main and points east.

Lets also point out........those main roads are now mostly six-storey or more, as-of-right, and the adjacent SFH areas are now mostly 4s as-of-right, with multiplex permissions.

I'll grant those last moves are fairly recent, but they are done.

****

I'd make another point, Line 1 and Line 2 are both close to capacity at key points, hence the 1.5B expansion of Bloor-Yonge, another similar project at St. George that will follow, expansion of Spadina Station also set to get underway, and then there's the Ontario Line.

I think its a bit off to imagine that we can stack another 100,000 people on or adjacent to Line 2 (or Line 1) at most points and not run into capacity constraints that will cost $$$ to alleviate.

I'm well aware of this growth, but it does not exempt whole halves of other lines from going essentially untouched for a half century. And in regards to these 'as of right' multiplexes, reality has not been so kind and we have hardly seen the rapid "Parisification' of the suburbs that some seemed to believe would happen.
The as of right permissions on main roads are of equally dubious value, with uptake being very minimal. I recently attended the Lakeshore Avenue Study consultation where many incredulous long time residents questioned why their beautiful mid rise avenue had not developed along Lakeshore in the 20 years since the last avenue study granted as of right permissions to around 6 stories (I might be off a few stories). The simple fact staff tried to explain was the land cost was simply too high and potential return of units too low for any builder to bother doing so. The city can 'upzone' as much as it wants but if they do so in a way that still does not make that kind of development profitable we will, we won't see new units.

 

[Undead]

Shockingly, builders do in fact have to have a hope of turning a profit in order to secure capital to build. I don't see why everyone thinks developers are somehow exempt from the same economic restraints as every other business owner. Nobody expects a resteraunt to sell a plate they lose money on, but building a tower for a loss is an assumed moral necessity of builders. It's peculiar.

I don't assume that for profit corporations are expected to be virtuous. My point is in challenging the frequent assumption in our public discourse that it's government (City) bureaucracy which prevents hOuSiNg SuPpLy. Demonstrably, that point is not the case, and the reality is more complicated.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm well aware of this growth, but it does not exempt whole halves of other lines from going essentially untouched for a half century. And in regards to these 'as of right' multiplexes, reality has not been so kind and we have hardly seen the rapid "Parisification' of the suburbs that some seemed to believe would happen.
The as of right permissions on main roads are of equally dubious value, with uptake being very minimal. I recently attended the Lakeshore Avenue Study consultation where many incredulous long time residents questioned why their beautiful mid rise avenue had not developed along Lakeshore in the 20 years since the last avenue study granted as of right permissions to around 6 stories (I might be off a few stories). The simple fact staff tried to explain was the land cost was simply too high and potential return of units too low for any builder to bother doing so. The city can 'upzone' as much as it wants but if they do so in a way that still does not make that kind of development profitable we will, we won't see new units.

We will have to fundamentally disagree.

The price one pays for land should reflect what you can build on it, if developers are over-paying that's not the City's fault.

Yes, there certainly is some room for tweaks, as I myself have posted. Also, its only been a year and to expect a wholesale rush of proposals in a high interest climate is entirely unrealistic.........

That said, there isn't any vast surplus of transit capacity on Lakeshore in Etobicoke currently. With great respect, I don't understand your position(s). You condemn the City for not building transit it can't afford on Queensway, then condemn it in the same thread for anything less than 40-storey as-of-right zoning on a road with no higher-order transit....... Those two positions seem completely contradictory to me.