Toronto 1930-1938 Bloor West | 62.31m | 17s | Old Stonehenge | Baron Nelson Architects

Application is in!! Design by Baron Nelson Archiects:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca


blorr4.JPG
blorr3.JPG
blorr2.JPG
blorr.JPG
 
If Mike pulls this off, all power to him.

5.5m setback to east, 5.7m to north, 1.2m to south and 0m to west

150k SF GFA @ $16m purchase for $106/buildable

The standard floor plates are 911m2... I almost wonder if they just did a 25 storey slim tower at 650m2 floor plates, you can get into the low 200,000s GFA . Though your efficiencies will be jeopardized with more than 2 elevators. If you tacked on 1926, you'd have a very efficient tower site... but it looks like 1926 comes with rental replacement, and who knows if the seller was willing to sell, etc and at what price point you could appeal to them
 
Let's look at how this evolved since the previous page:

1711391580098.png


Now a closer look at what's proposed here:

1711391703373.png


@HousingNowTO should be flagged given the proximity to transit and seeming appropriateness of affordable housing here.

Site Plan:

1711392073647.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1711392107462.png




Comments:

@1Ć0 is entirely on point above, this is one very challenged application as-is.

From setbacks to floor plate size; the building does not conform to either the mid-rise standards or the tall building standards and isn't particularly close.

The first issue to jump out at me, beyond the above is parking.........the argued justification here is PMSTA right next to High Park Station then we get 63 parking spaces vs 144 units for a 0.43 parking ratio - way high for this argument.

Elevator ratio is good though, 3 elevators to 144 units is over 2 elevators per 100 units.

I have difficulty seeing this one going through in its current iteration. But we shall see!
 
Northern Light said:
From setbacks to floor plate size; the building does not conform to either the mid-rise standards or the tall building standards and isn't particularly close.

The first issue to jump out at me, beyond the above is parking.........the argued justification here is PMSTA right next to High Park Station then we get 63 parking spaces vs 144 units for a 0.43 parking ratio - way high for this argument.

Elevator ratio is good though, 3 elevators to 144 units is over 2 elevators per 100 units.

I have difficulty seeing this one going through in its current iteration. But we shall see!
Click to expand...

I very much hope this gets through in at least a version of what is currently being proposed and sets some precedent for changing floor plate/setbacks guidelines.

1712203856561.png


Large and decently shaped units? What is this the 70s? It's crazy the things one can fit in a building when the floor plate isn't the size of a pin head.
 
toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com


1930-1938 Bloor Street West and 3, 5 & 21 Quebec Avenue - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting​


Tuesday, April 30, 2024 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Register for webinar
If you want to attend, register now. When your registration is approved, you'll receive an invitation to join the webinar.

Host
Kishmita Arora

Agenda
The City of Toronto Planning Division has received a Zoning By-law Amendment and Rental Housing Demolition application which proposes a 17-storey mixed use building. The proposal will have 380 square metres of ground floor retail and 144 dwelling units, including 12 rental replacement units.

For further information on the proposal, please view the website at: http://www.toronto.ca/1930BloorStW
 
1Ć0 said:
Didn't they have a community meeting on April 11th? Post right above yours
Click to expand...

No; the post right above mine was on the 11th, but the meeting is scheduled for April 30th.

The results will be an attachment to the Refusal Report.
 
I attended the community meeting on April 30th. The community was very against as, was Councilor Perks. One speaker was able to express support. I made my support known to Perks after.

I live in the area and though I love it, the nimbyism here is so strong. The opposition from other residents of the mid-century high rises is what really sends me. I can only hope the urgency of the housing crisis is enough impetus to get something meaningful built here.
 
DensityDan said:
I attended the community meeting on April 30th. The community was very against as, was Councilor Perks. One speaker was able to express support. I made my support known to Perks after.

I live in the area and though I love it, the nimbyism here is so strong. The opposition from other residents of the mid-century high rises is what really sends me. I can only hope the urgency of the housing crisis is enough impetus to get something meaningful built here.
Click to expand...

Appreciate you posting on this.

***

Nimbyism aside, the City can't support this as is; that was predictable as you can see from the discussion up thread.

There is absolutely room to do 'something' here; the problem is that if this were built to guidelines, the pro-formas (the financial viability) will be challenging.

@1Ć0 really laid out how to make this site work above.

But there is no easy path.

Configured as it is; the City (and even most builders) would consider it a very problematic precedent.
 
Commentary from the Junctioneer blog:

www.junctioneer.ca

A concise summary of Councillor Perks’ remarks regarding the proposed development, adjacent to the High Park subway

A concise summary of Councillor Perks’ remarks regarding the proposed development: The proposal does not conform to several aspects of the urban design guidelines outlined in the Bloor West …
www.junctioneer.ca

A concise summary of Councillor Perks’ remarks regarding the proposed development:

  • The proposal does not conform to several aspects of the urban design guidelines outlined in the Bloor West Avenue Study.
    • It exceeds the maximum height specified in the study.
    • The building’s setback is only six or six-and-a-half meters, whereas the recommended setback is nine meters to maintain spacious sidewalks along Bloor Street.
  • Specifically for the area near High Park, there’s a guideline to narrow buildings as they get taller, preserving views into the park.
  • Councillor Perks emphasized that the proposal not only contradicts local guidelines but also broader city planning rules for mid-rise vs. high-rise typology.
    • The developers aim for mid-rise width combined with tall building height.
  • Planning decisions consider the impact on neighboring buildings and the community, aiming for positive outcomes. However, this proposal is likely to have negative impacts.
A proposed , put forth development by Clifton Blake, aims to construct a 17-storey mixed-use building adjacent to the High Park subway station on the Bloor-Danforth line. The site is situated directly across from High Park and encompasses municipally known addresses at 3, 5, and 21 Quebec Avenue, as well as 1930, 1932, 1934, 1936, and 1938 Bloor Street West. This prime location would accommodate 132 new condo units and 12 replacement rental units.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top