Toronto 140 Merton Street | 99.8m | 29s | Missanabie Cree Elders Care | Montgomery Sisam

Thanks @Art Tsai .

Per the above, @HousingNowTO, I can see no indication that the zoning resubmission has been filed.

It is worth saying there is a period between filing and the docs going public, typically from a few days to 3 weeks.
 
Thanks @Art Tsai .

Per the above, @HousingNowTO, I can see no indication that the zoning resubmission has been filed.

It is worth saying there is a period between filing and the docs going public, typically from a few days to 3 weeks.

Noted it and acted upon this mission.
 
Re-submission.

@HousingNowTO will be pleased to see a nearly 100% height boost to 28s

1692303460119.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1692303499400.png



Massing:

1692303544815.png



Elevation:

1692303568030.png


1692303711553.png



No new renders
 
The new rendering is updated in the database. The overall storey count increased from 15 storey to 28 storey. Height changed from 53.03m to 93.60m. Finally, the total unit count increased from 150 units to 294 units.

All the info are taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning.
 
Last edited:
The new rendering is updated in the database. The overall storey count increased from 15 storey to 28 storey. Height changed from 53.03m to 93.60m. Finally, the total unit count increased from 150 units to 294 units.

All the info are taken from the architectural plan via Rezoning.
...from 18 storeys as passed by Council to 28-storeys via this resubmission.
 
DFF8F375-19F4-4AB3-926A-F2852F8FDB20.jpeg


E99621DA-95CE-493F-B2BD-0F81D85F1A25.jpeg


DB224D19-02A1-4264-B43B-30D7F4A51069.jpeg


Dropped by the site to see if there was any new signage, but nothing yet.

Will this be processed as a “Variance” or as a new “Zoning By-Law Amendment”..?

Trying to determine what kind of signage we can expect..?
 
Why is it so much shorter than proposed and approved buildings around it?

It's 7s shorter than 2 of the proposals and 9 shorter than 1, which was decided by OLT. * Note here, that I advocated for greater than 26s, which was the HousingNow model, we got 28; I could/would have supported a bit more.

But I think it's important to take things in their context.

1) This building was increased in size from 18s to 28s and thus grew by 55%.,

2) This building is actually one unit larger than was modelled by @HousingNowTO and 2s taller.

3) I imagine that while increasing density they also wanted to propose a number that would not result in an OLT appeal, the safe choice would be to say under the lowest approved height nearby.

4) In the resubmission there was no new Block Context Plan, so it's unclear how much thought was given to what precedents were, or were not in effect at the time. But the original Block Context from 2019 reveals much less height in the vicinity.

1694544257190.png


5) If the height/unit count rises enough you need one or more additional elevators, you then lose ft2 per floor and have to make that up with even more height. There is an element of maximizing what one can achieve.

6) Finally, I would imagine that there is a question of capital availability. This one is not coming from a deep-pocketed developer.
 
Last edited:
It's 7s shorter than 2 of the proposals and 9 shorter than 1, which was decided by OLT. * Note here, that I advocated for greater than 26s, which was the HousingNow model, we got 28; I could/would have supported a bit more.

But I think it's important to take things in their context.

1) This building was increased in size from 18s to 28s and thus grew by 55%.,

2) This building is actually one unit larger than was modelled by @HousingNowTO and 2s taller.

3) I imagine that while increasing density they also wanted to propose a number that would not result in an OLT appeal, the safe choice would be to say under the lowest approved height nearby.

4) In the resubmission there was no new Block Context Plan, so its unclear how much thought was given to what precedents were, or were not in effect at the time. But the original Block Context from 2019 reveals much less height in the vicinity.

View attachment 505873

5) If the height/unit count rises enough you need one or more additional elevators, you then lose ft2 per floor and have to make that up with even more height. There is an element of maximizing what one can achieve.

6) Finally, I would imagine that there is a question of capital availability. This one is not coming from a deep-pocketed developer.

Good points, who do you imagine would appeal this if it went for higher height?
 
Good points, who do you imagine would appeal this if it went for higher height?

I think the risk is low, if it stays within established precedent (up to about 35s); if the motive on height were appeal avoidance that would not surprise me, CreateTO does have a habit of being conservative in its assumptions.

That said, it may well be other factors that I noted above (need for major re-design; associated time delays w/that, access to capital}
 
I think the risk is low, if it stays within established precedent (up to about 35s); if the motive on height were appeal avoidance that would not surprise me, CreateTO does have a habit of being conservative in its assumptions.

That said, it may well be other factors that I noted above (need for major re-design; associated time delays w/that, access to capital}

Right I'm just wondering who we think would be the appellant? Can the city appeal itself?
 

Back
Top