Toronto 250 Viewmount Avenue | 143.76m | 40s | Chestnut Hill | Kirkor

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
33,831
Reaction score
96,950
Location
Toronto/EY
This is the assembly from 250-258 Viewmount noted by @Ellec2221 in the thread for the development on the south side of the street. @Paclo

Here the would-be building is asking for 40s.

Site as it is: (per Streetview 2021)

1722502518572.png


Application:


Just one render, which the too-cool-for (architecture) school kids over at KirKor decided to do in black-and-white.

1722502216160.png


This is the same team from 'The Wilde' just up the street, so to speak, on Glencairn.

Site Plan:

1722502687707.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1722502777061.png


Site Stats:

1722502657984.png


Parking Ratio: 154 residential spaces (excl.Visitor) for a 0.32 parking ratio.

Elevator Ratio: 4 elevators to 477 units or 1 elevator per 0.83 elevators per 100 units/ 1 elevator to every 119 units (approx)

Comments:

The height ask here is aggressive. It is right next to Glencairn Station, which certain sets the stage for a tall building, but the nearest proposal, across the street has gone for 33s, so this would be a more than 20% premium to that.

If the ask is to be seriously considered it should be because they gave @HousingNowTO something to be happy about by way of affordable housing.

On parking ratio, its not terrible, but seems a smidge high for right beside a subway station.

Elevator ratio is a bit low, but not atrocious.

The architectural concept is KirKor; 'nuff said.

On Parkland, I'd like to see an offsite acquisition to expand existing area parks.

257 Hillmount to the north could enhance what is currently just a green corridor into a place;

1722503555466.png


The proposal here will be sited directly to the south and east of this home.

Alternatively, they could acquire more land on Romar to the south, to expand Benner Park
 
Will keep an eye on it... Thx!

Who is the development company..?
 
Will keep an eye on it... Thx!

Who is the development company..?

Chestnut Hill

They do a lot of suburban stuff, but did this site very nearby:


This is a project they did in Pickering:


This is one from Vaughan:


There are a few others.

Their corporate web page is here:

 
I have a quick question maybe one of you can help me answer:

When looking at the floor-plate of the proposed development at 250 Viewmount, it seems that they have an unnecessarily large East setback of 20.99m.
Their floor-plate is 784m2 under my calculations.

They have two clear options for making the economics more favourable:

Option 1 - reduce the East setback from 20.99m to 5.5m (applicable since there is a park to the East and not subject to future high rise development and tall building guidelines).
Doing so allows them to get rid of one property to their West that they acquired (258 Viewmount) and still have the tower with the same floor-plate.


Or Option 2 - Decrease the 20.99m East setback to allow for an 800m2 floorplate. Reduce the width of the tower from 24m to 18m or 19m. Similar to Osmington's layout across the street since that will provide them with better unit layouts.

In either case it seems like they can have better outcomes economically.

Why did they have such a huge setback to the East?
Thanks in advance
 

Attachments

  • 250 Viewmount (Block Context FP).png
    250 Viewmount (Block Context FP).png
    344.3 KB · Views: 7
Why did they have such a huge setback to the East?
Thanks in advance
Good question. I'm not 100% sure. The patch of grass to the east of 250 looks to be designated as neighbourhood and not a park in the OP. But in TOmaps it shows up as green space??

A very rudimentary and simple explanation would be that the city requires a 20m setback from a tower to a neighbourhood designated property - why a 20m setback does not apply between the tower and west and north property boundary is another worthwhile question here.... It may be BC the city assumes the rest of the block will also become towers, so 12.5m to north and west is sufficient.

1723062961079.png


1723062998843.png


1723063095358.png
 
Good question. I'm not 100% sure. The patch of grass to the east of 250 looks to be designated as neighbourhood and not a park in the OP. But in TOmaps it shows up as green space??

A very rudimentary and simple explanation would be that the city requires a 20m setback from a tower to a neighbourhood designated property - why a 20m setback does not apply between the tower and west and north property boundary is another worthwhile question here.... It may be BC the city assumes the rest of the block will also become towers, so 12.5m to north and west is sufficient.

View attachment 586510

View attachment 586515

View attachment 586516
That “empty” patch of land is actually used by TTC construction crew for Glencairn station renovations, specifically the reinstallation of the “Joy” artwork and for the installation of the elevators.

The Google Street View image is outdated.

I pass by there very frequently to and from Glencairn station’s Viewmount exit.
 
Why would station renovations make the developer apply a 20.9m East setback? They shouldn't need any setback requirements for the renovation of the station.
In my opinion Chestnut should just have a 5 meter setback to the East - 2m for the podium. Which adheres to Toronto Tall Building Guidelines.

Seems like they are waisting prime development land here.
 
I have a quick question maybe one of you can help me answer:

When looking at the floor-plate of the proposed development at 250 Viewmount, it seems that they have an unnecessarily large East setback of 20.99m.
Their floor-plate is 784m2 under my calculations.

They have two clear options for making the economics more favourable:

Option 1 - reduce the East setback from 20.99m to 5.5m (applicable since there is a park to the East and not subject to future high rise development and tall building guidelines).
Doing so allows them to get rid of one property to their West that they acquired (258 Viewmount) and still have the tower with the same floor-plate.


Or Option 2 - Decrease the 20.99m East setback to allow for an 800m2 floorplate. Reduce the width of the tower from 24m to 18m or 19m. Similar to Osmington's layout across the street since that will provide them with better unit layouts.

In either case it seems like they can have better outcomes economically.

Why did they have such a huge setback to the East?
Thanks in advance

The answer is found in the Planning Rationale Report:

The highlights are because I searched the word Setback.

1723141043422.png

****

1723141082241.png

The adjacent parcel is defined as Park Space:

1723141209812.png
 
Why would station renovations make the developer apply a 20.9m East setback? They shouldn't need any setback requirements for the renovation of the station.
In my opinion Chestnut should just have a 5 meter setback to the East - 2m for the podium. Which adheres to Toronto Tall Building Guidelines.

Seems like they are waisting prime development land here.
The developed isn't applying a tower setback to the "station renos". The land on which the station renos sit are designated as neighbourhoods. Tall building guidelines and city staff require 20m setback from a tower to a neighbourhood designated piece of land.

You raise a worthwhile question as to why do they need 20m to the west when there's nothing there, other than just a designation. My cursory explanation is bc of neighbourhood designation

Block and Context plan has some more insight:

1723141201967.png


1723141225885.png

1723141251385.png
 

Back
Top