Toronto 2180 Yonge | 247m | 65s | Oxford Properties | Hariri Pontarini

Gee, how things have changed since 2009, expect the towers to be a least double the height limit

At its meeting on February 23, 24, and 25, 2009
Massing the height of the towers at Yonge and Eglinton with the use of strata title
(retained by the City) to enforce the 120 metre height limit; and
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2009.P
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee, how things have changed since 2009, expect the towers to be a least double the height limit

At its meeting on February 23, 24, and 25, 2009
Massing the height of the towers at Yonge and Eglinton with the use of strata title
(retained by the City) to enforce the 120 metre height limit; and
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2009.P
Click to expand...
It is very apparent looking around the neighbourhood at the heights of buildings built between 2000-2012 and since 2012.

Buildings that looked like monster heights when I was growing are being dwarfed by the likes of Madison, or will be by E Condos. Not mentioning 1 Eglinton East.
 
Hey, so here's what went on at June Council:

Redevelopment of Toronto Transit Commission Lands at Yonge-Eglinton
Committee Recommendations
The Executive Committee recommends that:

1. City Council request Build Toronto, in consultation with Toronto Transit Commission, Real Estate Services and City Planning, to negotiate directly with the long-term lessee(s) located at Yonge and Eglinton regarding options for redeveloping the Lands, identified as Parts 1 to 4 in Appendix A to the report (May 5, 2016) from the Chief Corporate Officer, and to report back to City Council in the fourth quarter of 2016 with an evaluation of options and a recommended plan for advancing redevelopment.

2. City Council request Build Toronto, as the project lead, to continue to consult with the local Councillors on recommended redevelopment options and alternatives through the process.

3. City Council advise the Toronto Transit Commission Board of Council's support for consolidating and relocating Toronto Transit Commission offices.

4. City Council request the Toronto Transit Commission Board to exclude the Yonge and Eglinton lands from consideration for consolidated office space and/or a new head office.

5. City Council request the Toronto Transit Commission Board, in consultation with Build Toronto and Real Estate Services, to consider options for a new head office and/or consolidated office space along the subway system throughout the City including Toronto/East York, Scarborough, North York, and Etobicoke districts.

6. City Council direct that Confidential Attachment 1 to the letter (May 2, 2016) from the Chief Financial and Administration Officer, Toronto Transit Commission [EX15.10a] remain confidential as it involves a proposed or pending acquisition or sale of land for municipal or local board purposes.

Confidential Attachment - A proposed or pending acquisition or sale of land for municipal or local board purposes

Background Information (Committee)
(May 5, 2016) Report from the Chief Corporate Officer on Redevelopment of Toronto Transit Commission Lands at Yonge-Eglinton
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-92960.pdf)
Appendix A - Property Sketch
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-92961.pdf)
Appendix B - Aerial View and Current Uses
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-92962.pdf)

Motions (City Council)
Motion to Adopt Item (Carried)

Motion to Reconsider Item moved by Councillor Josh Colle (Carried)
That in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 27, Council Procedures, City Council reconsider Item EX15.10.

1 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Josh Colle (Lost)
That City Council delete Executive Committee Recommendation 4.

Recommendation to be deleted:

4. City Council request the Toronto Transit Commission Board to exclude the Yonge and Eglinton lands from consideration for consolidated office space and/or a new head office.

Motion to Adopt Item (Carried)

10a Toronto Transit Commission - Redevelopment of Toronto Transit Commission Lands at Yonge-Eglinton
Confidential Attachment - A proposed or pending acquisition or sale of land for municipal or local board purposes

Background Information (Committee)
(May 2, 2016) Letter from the Chief Financial and Administration Officer on Redevelopment of Toronto Transit Commission Lands at Yonge-Eglinton
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-92761.pdf)
(April 27, 2016) Report from the Chief Executive Officer on Redevelopment of Toronto Transit Commission Lands at Yonge-Eglinton
(http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-92762.pdf)
Confidential Attachment 1
 
So, from the post above, can someone tell me if part of the Motions section should be read like this…

1 - Motion to Amend Item moved by Councillor Josh Colle (Lost)
That City Council delete Executive Committee Recommendation 4.

Recommendation to be deleted:

4. City Council request the Toronto Transit Commission Board to exclude the Yonge and Eglinton lands from consideration for consolidated office space and/or a new head office.
​
or like this:

That City Council delete Executive Committee Recommendation 4.

Recommendation to be deleted:

4. City Council request the Toronto Transit Commission Board to exclude the Yonge and Eglinton lands from consideration for consolidated office space and/or a new head office.

Motion to Adopt Item (Carried)​

Essentially, it's not completely clear to me from the formatting as to whether the (Lost) or the (Carried) applies to this recommendation. Thanks

42
 
Why did Council want to prevent the TTC from having their head offices here? It's an obvious location, at the intersection of two major lines. Was the concern simply that they want the option for a higher revenue tenant, or to free the hand of a developer?
 
Tulse said:
Why did Council want to prevent the TTC from having their head offices here? It's an obvious location, at the intersection of two major lines. Was the concern simply that they want the option for a higher revenue tenant, or to free the hand of a developer?
Click to expand...

They could have taken the opportunity for an LCBO-like possibility - and in exchange gain the existing Davisville HQ as redevelopable site.

AoD
 
Tulse said:
Why did Council want to prevent the TTC from having their head offices here? It's an obvious location, at the intersection of two major lines. Was the concern simply that they want the option for a higher revenue tenant, or to free the hand of a developer?
Click to expand...
It allow a better return on the dollar and able to charge more than they could for TTC. It also allow a free hand for the developer.

It's possible that TTC current HQ could remain where it is, but in a totally new building that part of another taller development. Then there is the old switch/swap from one site for another with TTC having to pay less in the long run.

There is that nice haft torn down site across the street that could become TTC HQ site. Been a few years since it became an eyesore.

Where should TTC HQ be is a good question these days as well size. TTC needs at least 20 floors, depending on floor size.
 
Assuming that a suitable and convenient site could be identified (13 Division perhaps?), Eglinton West would also be at the intersection of two rapid transit lines. Might also expose TTC honchos to the rather constrained conditions at St. George a bit more frequently...
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
They could have taken the opportunity for an LCBO-like possibility - and in exchange gain the existing Davisville HQ as redevelopable site.

AoD
Click to expand...
I think vacating Davisville entirely was more likely when there was the possibility that the yard would go too, yielding up a massive redevelopable property with reduced subway nuisance akin to Rosedale's open cut, maybe leaving the current third track as a pocket arrangement.

It seems to me that TTC have realised they cannot easily do without Davisville Yard and the likelihood of more train storage up line is still far in the future. The decision to go with 4 car TRs means these cars will be maintained on YUS rather than sent to Greenwood as the original plan foresaw.

As such the TTC and/or other ABCs are a more likely tenant for a redevelopment than a commercial operation whose tenants can pick and choose whether they want to be beside an active yard. The bus terminal lands being purposed as a commercial development seems to make more long run sense, just as a museum at York Mills seemed like money needlessly left on the table. The thing to remember about TTC HQ is that it is overcapacity, with some staff (allegedly - think it was in Metro a while back?) having cramped and unsuitable conditions and others dispersed in leased premises. If the Davisville HQ is redeveloped then the HQ staff will need to be rehoused anyway - maybe somewhere in Yonge/Eglinton - to permit that work to be carried out.
 
dowlingm said:
I think vacating Davisville entirely was more likely when there was the possibility that the yard would go too, yielding up a massive redevelopable property with reduced subway nuisance akin to Rosedale's open cut, maybe leaving the current third track as a pocket arrangement.

It seems to me that TTC have realised they cannot easily do without Davisville Yard and the likelihood of more train storage up line is still far in the future. The decision to go with 4 car TRs means these cars will be maintained on YUS rather than sent to Greenwood as the original plan foresaw.
Click to expand...

Actually I was thinking of just severing the yard from the TTC HQ building proper - it's cleaner solution that doesn't involve any future plans regarding the former (which I suspect will be a big fight with the neighbourhood if it ever happens).

AoD
 
WislaHD said:
I would have wished to see the TTC office be relocated to this site. Yonge+Eglinton needs more office workers.
Click to expand...
Doesn't that assume that the TTC is the only tenant who would occupy a commercial building on this site?
 
dowlingm said:
Doesn't that assume that the TTC is the only tenant who would occupy a commercial building on this site?
Click to expand...
Why should it?

I expect this site to have multiple commercial towers. Having a stable tenant like the TTC occupying several floors of one tower should only make for a much more viable project, no?
 
WislaHD said:
Why should it?

I expect this site to have multiple commercial towers. Having a stable tenant like the TTC occupying several floors of one tower should only make for a much more viable project, no?
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. A public sector tenant might have some optics issue if building fit out was aimed at high end tenants for example (even if the TTC's own floors were basic).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top