Project Essentials / dataBase – detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
2280 Dundas West 
2280 Dundas St W, Toronto
Developer: Choice Properties REIT

2280 Dundas West | ?m | 42s | Choice Properties | Hariri Pontarini

Discussion in 'Buildings' started by smably, May 25, 2017.

  1. smably

    smably Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Just mentioned by Gord Perks on Twitter: http://gordperks.ca/bloor-dundas_proposal_meeting/

    Sounds like Choice Properties, a.k.a. Loblaws, is finally moving to redevelop their huge property at Bloor and Dundas:
    This was the city's demonstration plan from the Bloor/Dundas Avenue Study back in 2009:
    bloor-dundas-study.

    And here's a presentation from November of last year on the site, which indicates that the planning is being handled by Giannone Petricone and Urban Strategies:
    http://toronto.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2016/11/5-ChoiceReitPres_Final-for-ULI.pdf

    Via presentation above, the plan may include a pedestrian link over the rail corridor to the future Bloor/Lansdowne RER station, and maybe even a pedestrian tunnel to Dundas West Station:
    connectivity.

    Finally, here are some low-res renderings from a 2015 investor presentation, likely out of date now, but worth noting for historical interest:
    Investor-PPT-Sept-2015-FINAL-87.
    Investor-PPT-Sept-2015-FINAL-89.
    Investor-PPT-Sept-2015-FINAL-90.
     
    Last edited: May 25, 2017
    #1

  2. AlbertC

    AlbertC Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    852
    Location:
    Burnistoun
    Pretty significant development with a lot of potential for the area. Looking forward to seeing how this progresses next.
     
    #2
  3. Waterloo_Guy

    Waterloo_Guy Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2007
    Messages:
    795
    Likes Received:
    211
    Perhaps this will provide some zoning context for the Giraffe site. I'd like to see that site developed.
     
    #3
    steveintoronto likes this.
  4. TorPronto

    TorPronto New Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2017
    Messages:
    22
    Likes Received:
    10
    I was thinking the same. I was surprised it was turned down by the OMB in the first place. Another year and they could give it another shot.
     
    #4
  5. Towered

    Towered Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,255
    Likes Received:
    756
    I wonder what took so long. This site has been criminally under-utilized for ages, and that store flat out sucks.

    Also, if there's talk of a new school being built, this would be a golden opportunity to do a land swap and tear down that awful Bishop Morocco at the corner to replace it with something urban and engaging. The intersection needs all the help it can get. I'd like to see a proposal similar to the Honest's Ed's and Bloor-Dufferin sites.
     
    #5
    ponyboy and steveintoronto like this.
  6. interchange42

    interchange42 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,521
    Likes Received:
    12,202
    Location:
    by the Humber
    #6
  7. WislaHD

    WislaHD Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,834
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Location:
    Midtown Toronto
    This is welcomed density!

    I feel like they could have gone for several storeys taller, but this is still fine.
     
    #7
  8. interchange42

    interchange42 Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Messages:
    20,521
    Likes Received:
    12,202
    Location:
    by the Humber
    Taller than what? We haven't seen an actual proposal yet.

    42
     
    #8
  9. WislaHD

    WislaHD Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2013
    Messages:
    5,834
    Likes Received:
    2,596
    Location:
    Midtown Toronto
    I had to double-take!

    I incorrectly presumed the picture in the OP was the massing for the proposal. I should have skimmed more slowly!

    So is Cllr Perks accurate, that we should be looking at ~10 storey buildings?
     
    #9
  10. smably

    smably Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2009
    Messages:
    781
    Likes Received:
    1,301
    Almost certainly more than that. The city has indicated a willingness to accept 15 storeys at the Giraffe site with a bit more land assembly, and that is a much smaller and more constrained site. The demonstration plan above is from ~8 years ago, before SmartTrack/GO RER was even on the horizon. I would expect that the planning context is very different now, and a deal with the TCDSB would further expand the site and reduce shadowing concerns. I would expect the city to be OK with at least 20 storeys, and I suspect that the applicant will be asking for significantly more than that. Given Crossways right across the street, I think 30 storeys would not be at all inappropriate here.
     
    #10
    ponyboy, ADRM, WislaHD and 2 others like this.
  11. ProjectEnd

    ProjectEnd Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    7,325
    Likes Received:
    4,279
    Given that Galleria is asking for 3,416 units much further from transit, there isn't a hope in hell that Choice is going to settle for 704 (or anything near that). I can't see this going anywhere but tall (in places).

    I've seen several concepts from a local firm - whether they are current or not I can't say.
     
    #11
    ponyboy, interchange42, ADRM and 2 others like this.
  12. AlbertC

    AlbertC Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    852
    Location:
    Burnistoun
    Density should be encouraged here considering that this location is served by multiple transit options including the subway, GO train, UP Express, King and Dundas streetcar lines, and subsequent bus routes all within relative distance.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    #12
  13. steveintoronto

    steveintoronto Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2016
    Messages:
    6,582
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    Traffic onto Dundas from the present site is horrendous, and very dangerous, part of the problem beyond the obvious unsignalled access is that it is the *only* access to the site at this time.

    I note the City's 2009 Demonstration Plan opens Herman and Ritchie Avenues to traffic flow from the site, now blocked. If I lived on either street, I'd have a real issue with that. Something more radical than being proposed has to be done about the traffic situation. It's a bit late in the day now with the building proceeding on Perth, but it might have been apt to build an underpass to Sterling (Via the east-west leg of Perth):

    [​IMG]

    http://castlepointnuma.com/project/perth-sterling-revitalization/

    upload_2017-5-27_15-34-52.
    www.google.ca/maps

    upload_2017-5-27_15-38-37.
    http://toronto.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/53/2016/11/5-ChoiceReitPres_Final-for-ULI.pdf

    An underpass would not be cheap, by any means, and it would detract from the 'protected pocket' of the Sterling/Perth area, but if the traffic volume is going to increase vastly from the present amount, which is already very problematic, the situation has to be addressed before further densification and development. (which I'm highly in favour of, the present area is a blight) Herman and Ritchie alone shouldn't be the relief access to the new development. The "proposed pedestrian overpass" should be considered as vehicular access as well.

    Make no mistake, no-one is more anti-car than myself, but it would be wishful thinking to believe that the mindless masses who flock to and from there now and in the future high-rises are going to do so as pedestrians or cyclists. Sterling Rd south from Perth is a perfect conduit to handle a lot of that vehicular traffic.
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2017
    #13
    WislaHD likes this.
  14. nrb

    nrb Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2009
    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    55
    I agree that traffic is a real problem at that site. We'll see what they come up with as a solution. Major issue being it's sandwiched between the intersection at bloor and dundas with high traffic including streetcars, buses and pedestrians, and the bizarre dundas/roncesvalles intersection, and they are proposing to connect to one lane residential cul de sacs that currently have zero traffic. I don't think something like this is going to be easy to convince the city on despite what the posters above are saying.

    A connection to sterling road would be great.. but I can't see it happening as it would become a major avenue to cross the tracks. Right now the only places to cross the tracks in the area are at Dupont, Dundas and Bloor. Each of them gets backed up at the intections on either side of the pass. I can't see the city agreeing to put in a smaller throughfare without major capacity to handle all that additional traffic.
     
    #14
    steveintoronto likes this.
  15. steveintoronto

    steveintoronto Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2016
    Messages:
    6,582
    Likes Received:
    2,412
    You've exactly caught the dilemma. I live just north of the current traffic nightmare, even *walking* on the sidewalk is dangerous, let alone cycling through there. And you're right again on the Roncy/Dundas enigma. I'm an accomplished cyclist, but I can see real danger and be pro-active on it. I get off the bike and walk it across the tracks, not that I can't angle my front wheel across the tracks, but with vehicles zooming through there, the *opportunity* to have the room to angle it may not present itself, and the angle of the streetcar tracks is such to render serious accidents for cyclists (there's been a number there). Traffic altogether on that stretch is a nightmare, and the whole area has to be addressed with a view to rationalizing it, and using Ritchie and especially Herman isn't the answer, albeit it could be part of it.

    The only solution is a bridge or underpass across the tracks to the east, and the only alignment that I could see working is from the south-east corner of the "Site" where a pedestrian overpass is now indicated.

    Will this happen? That's really the question. What can't happen is the situation as shown on the City's own "Connectivity Improvements". If a crossing of the tracks to the east is deemed too expensive (And Castlepoint will go ballistic, not to mention their connections at City Hall) (I question if an easement was kept by the City for an extension of Perth's southern east-west alignment to do exactly this) then something otherwise radical must be done for traffic flow.

    This development cannot proceed without a complete traffic study of the area, which is in need of one even w/o this development.

    Excellent post nrb, any further ideas greatly appreciated. I'm just going to reconnoiter the area more closely now to see what potential there is to squeeze in relief roads. I fully welcome development, the question is how to service it with access?

    Footnote: Thinking this all through...is it time to ask? Tenants of the development not have cars at all! I realize that there are parking requirements in the Planning Act and municipal level requirements...but it's well past time to revisit that.

    Or: If parking ratio per units/occupants continues to be mandated, then the cost for traffic improvement is assessed against the development.
     
    Last edited: May 28, 2017
    #15

Share This Page