Toronto 2405 Lake Shore West | 109.6m | 33s | Winzen | Sweeny &Co

[davidm]

What's the merit of building a new street on this site, anyways? Unless you're developing all the property up to the south side of Superior Avenue, there's no purpose it can have that a driveway wouldn't fulfill (besides, of course, passing responsibility off to the city).

I would think it's to manage vehicular traffic leaving the site. If you look at its location in relation to the Mimico - Lake Shore Blvd W intersection, there isn't enough room to cross over and drive up Mimico (you would pretty much have to cross all lanes at once instead of merging with the nearest, then switching lanes when safe, then moving into the turning lane). Even turning left and heading west along LSBW is not straightforward, especially if there is a westbound streetcar waiting at the intersection or passengers are boarding/alighting (Flexitys are 30m long - that's Mimico to Primrose). During PM peak traffic it would be extremely difficult to go west.

Directing traffic to Superior uses the existing signalized intersection there to provide both eastbound and westbound LSBW access.

 

[Northern Light]

I would think it's to manage vehicular traffic leaving the site. If you look at its location in relation to the Mimico - Lake Shore Blvd W intersection, there isn't enough room to cross over and drive up Mimico (you would pretty much have to cross all lanes at once instead of merging with the nearest, then switching lanes when safe, then moving into the turning lane). Even turning left and heading west along LSBW is not straightforward, especially if there is a westbound streetcar waiting at the intersection or passengers are boarding/alighting (Flexitys are 30m long - that's Mimico to Primrose). During PM peak traffic it would be extremely difficult to go west.

Directing traffic to Superior uses the existing signalized intersection there to provide both eastbound and westbound LSBW access.

If the developer wants to encroach on parkland I think its incumbent on them to make one hell of a net benefit case, and that includes replacing far more park than in poached.

They can start by buying the plaza noted in this screen shot:

View at street level:

Removing all that surface parking in favour of parkland might be worth the trade.

If the economics of that don't make sense, not the City's problem.

 

[drum118]

Mods, is this the same project as 2409-2411 or this next door to it??

I have it as an 6 story with C& Partners Architects Inc. and ? for owner/developer started in 2016

 

[davidm]

If the developer wants to encroach on parkland I think its incumbent on them to make one hell of a net benefit case, and that includes replacing far more park than in poached.

They can start by buying the plaza noted in this screen shot:

Removing all that surface parking in favour of parkland might be worth the trade.

If the economics of that don't make sense, not the City's problem.

Oh, I agree with you 100%, particularly the last point and I'm not endorsing it in any way. I was just explaining why the design requires a new road because the transportation context seemed to be missing from the discussion.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

One more render

 

[tashadoll]

Looking at the proposal, even setting aside aesthetics.......I would say this one merits a refusal report.

The idea that the proponent will build a required new street by buying a strip of existing park space, which is already relatively narrow, is not reasonable.

Precisely. Plus an increased safety hazard to the kids who play in the existing park.

 

[zing]

I know an architect who attended Rice University. Rice Architecture is one of the top programs in the USA . He firmly believes buildings do not have to be ugly to be financially feasible! There are bad and lazy architects and developers who do not care about aesthetics or the communities in which they impose themselves (and in which they do not live). Toronto is a city of lackluster architecture. We know that. This is sad. Why? No one seems to care. If you do not care about design and want to save money, then hire engineers to build your buildings. They could not do any worse (and who knows, maybe they would do better). I dread what Mimico will look like ten years from now. While I have no love for the ugly buildings that dot Lake Shore West today in Mimico, I prefer those dumps to monstrous and ugly buildings like this one which is entirely out of character and scale with the community. And for Pete's sake, why does the City of Toronto want to ruin the Lake Shore by dotting it with skyscrapers? Build them inland. Oh, and why do we have building codes that everyone ignores?

 

[Northern Light]

I know an architect who attended Rice University. Rice Architecture is one of the top programs in the USA . He firmly believes buildings do not have to be ugly to be financially feasible!

This is true, and often demonstrated in Toronto by better developers and architecture firms.

There are bad and lazy architects and developers who do not care about aesthetics or the communities in which they impose themselves (and in which they do not live). Toronto is a city of lackluster architecture.

Yes, sure, but don't over-state. There's actually lots of good architecture in Toronto too; and lots of bad architecture in cities around the globe. Do we have an inordinate share? Perhaps......

But I'd be cautious about that assertion overall.

No one seems to care. If you do not care about design and want to save money, then hire engineers to build your buildings.

That's not correct. Lots of people care. However, an investor-drive market definitely cares a bit less; so does a market in which many people find themselves priced-out by the day. Buy now, or forever rent.

This does result in accepting somewhat greater mediocrity that might pass in a less hot market.

And for Pete's sake, why does the City of Toronto want to ruin the Lake Shore by dotting it with skyscrapers? Build them inland.

I'm not entirely sure what the welfare of a beatified, long-dead person has to do w/anything..............but I wouldn't say the City 'chose' skyscrapers exactly.

Humber Bay Shores is a long, complicated story going back to the days for the former Etobicoke and NDP government of the day that expropriated much of the motel strip for parkland.

There was a quite a legal saga involved as well.

The modern, amalgamated City of Toronto, in many respect inherited what happened or would happen.

Oh, and why do we have building codes that everyone ignores?

Do you mean Official Plans? Or Zoning By-Laws? I don't think you see many people 'ignoring' the Building Code.

 

[zing]

This is true, and often demonstrated in Toronto by better developers and architecture firms.



Yes, sure, but don't over-state. There's actually lots of good architecture in Toronto too; and lots of bad architecture in cities around the globe. Do we have an inordinate share? Perhaps......

But I'd be cautious about that assertion overall.



That's not correct. Lots of people care. However, an investor-drive market definitely cares a bit less; so does a market in which many people find themselves priced-out by the day. Buy now, or forever rent.

This does result in accepting somewhat greater mediocrity that might pass in a less hot market.



I'm not entirely sure what the welfare of a beatified, long-dead person has to do w/anything..............but I wouldn't say the City 'chose' skyscrapers exactly.

Humber Bay Shores is a long, complicated story going back to the days for the Etobicoke and NDP government of the day that expropriated much of the motel strip for parkland.

There was a quite a legal saga involved as well.

The modern, amalgamated City of Toronto, in many respect inherited what happened or would happen.



Do you mean Official Plans? Or Zoning By-Laws? I don't think you see many people 'ignoring' the Building Code.

Zoning. When the building on the corner of Superior and Lake Shore West was built, the area was zoned for 7 story buildings (max). The proposal ignored this and the final building was fewer stories than first proposed but more stories than 7 stories. I liked the scale of the neighborhood and hoped that it would be maintained (that is, low rise).

 

[jmi22]

As stated above the narrowing of Amos Waites Park for a "street" which will only function as the driveway of the tower is nonsensical and just a continuation of the terrible trend of putting garage access onto main streets in the city. It breaks up coherent streetscape and poses a danger to the high levels of pedestrians travelling along Lake Shore. The new towers around Yonge/Wellesley came under critique for the same problem, putting large ugly garages directly onto Yonge street.

 

[jmi22]

Sad to see Birds and Beans cafe go, hopefully they can find another spot to relocate to. But it's time for those dump buildings next to it go, i remember seeing a development proposal for it a few years back, not quite sure what happened to it.

I assume the 10s building would front Lake Shore, while the 33s would be behind it. But here i am again saying, 33s is too high for this area, trim it down to 2/3rd's of that and now we're talking.

honestly why? What distinguishes a 21 story tower from a 33 story tower, other than eliminating hundreds of desperately needed residences? This hyper conservative instinct is what has sent Toronto into a chronic housing crisis brought on by a shortage of housing construction.

 

[Amare]

honestly why? What distinguishes a 21 story tower from a 33 story tower, other than eliminating hundreds of desperately needed residences? This hyper conservative instinct is what has sent Toronto into a chronic housing crisis brought on by a shortage of housing construction.

In short summary: there is no precedent for a 33 story tower anywhere in the immediate vicinity and doesnt conform to any neighborhood characteristics. There are many areas in the city where something like this would be appropriate, this isnt the area for it.

 

[Undead]

Not a supply problem.

 

[jmi22]

In short summary: there is no precedent for a 33 story tower anywhere in the immediate vicinity and doesnt conform to any neighborhood characteristics. There are many areas in the city where something like this would be appropriate, this isnt the area for it.

by that same logic, the first tower in Humber Bay Shores should have never been built seeing as there was not precedent for it. Maybe the first high rises built on Yonge in the early 20th century should never have been built seeing as they 'were without precedent'? Perhaps Yonge and Sheppard should have also been preserved as farmland, seeing as that the 'character' of the neighborhood up until 40 years ago, This nonsensical planning methodology is what results in local control wholly being eliminated as we saw recently with the MZO on lakeview in Mississauga allowing for twice the density Crombie and the rest of Mississauga's nimby council wanted to allow.

 

[jmi22]

Not a supply problem.

the vacany rate says otherwise