Toronto 253-263 Viewmount | 125.79m | 39s | Osmington Gerofsky | Wallman Architects

Ellec2221 said:
The lots marked in green have so far been drilled
View attachment 546712
Click to expand...

They won't be part of the same development with a public street cutting through, or I wouldn't think so anyway.

There is no lobbyist registry entry for these parcels and nothing in the City Planning files.
 
Northern Light said:
They won't be part of the same development with a public street cutting through, or I wouldn't think so anyway.

There is no lobbyist registry entry for these parcels and nothing in the City Planning files.
Click to expand...
These lots should be a part of another development though right?

Or is there some other possible reason for all the drilling and testing? Apologies if it's a silly question.
 
NotACop123 said:
These lots should be a part of another development though right?

Or is there some other possible reason for all the drilling and testing? Apologies if it's a silly question.
Click to expand...

The equipment on site makes that seem likely, particularly with a major proposal directly across the street.
 
IMG_3482.jpeg
 
Johnny Au said:
The holdout at 249 Viewmount would provide a buffer between Benner Park and this development along Viewmount, especially when it comes to shadowing over Benner Park.

The holdout could end up becoming an expanded Benner Park in the future.
Click to expand...

It should.

I also expect to see the south side of Romar assembled, and the eastern flank should be added to the park, and that would allow the current road to be closed and the end of it added to the park as well.
 
Northern Light said:
It should.

I also expect to see the south side of Romar assembled, and the eastern flank should be added to the park, and that would allow the current road to be closed and the end of it added to the park as well.
Click to expand...
Do you think it's likely the southern assembly of Romar would include some of the houses on Stayner?
 
NotACop123 said:
Do you think it's likely the southern assembly of Romar would include some of the houses on Stayner
Click to expand...

That's certainly plausible.

I can't speak to what will or will not happen with any given potential project at this point. But I can say, in the medium term, I expect all SFH to be removed between Allen and Marlee from Glencairn to Ridelle (south side of Stayner).

The logic is simple enough, they are within ~300M of Glencairn Station
 
Last edited:
Cambry Ardship said:
On the one hand I get that this doesn't front on Marlee and that's why there isn't any commercial space. On the other hand, it would be nice to be able to have a coffee shop/cafe or something right next to a subway stop.
Click to expand...
249 Viewmount, if the owner finally decides to sell, even long after the development is complete, could be converted into a café. After all, former holdouts make for good cafés.
 
It's nice to see appropriate density by transit eat into the bungalow belt a little more. Between these up-zonings and the major streets plan, some of these neighbourhoods are going to change pretty dramatically.
 
Northern Light said:
That's certainly plausible.

I can't speak to what will or will not happen with any given potential project at this point. But I can say, in the medium term, I expect all SFH to be removed between Allen and Marlee from Glencairn to Ridelle (south side of Stayner).

The logic is simple enough, they are within ~300M of Glencairn Station
Click to expand...

Would you not say the rationale is the buffer of the Allen expressway to protect the neighborhoods than the distance to the subway?...there are far closer areas to subways which will never be changed this drastically .
 
realpolytics said:
Would you not say the rationale is the buffer of the Allen expressway to protect the neighborhoods than the distance to the subway?...there are far closer areas to subways which will never be changed this drastically .
Click to expand...

Not really, no.

Stations are getting MTSAs that generally cover an area in/around 500M from a station entrance.

Those MTSAs will generally be permissive on density.

You can this in applications at Main Station for towers exceeding 50s, at Woodbine 30+s, at Pape, 40+s and so on.

There are or will be applications of which I'm aware for towers at or above 20s in height at, Kennedy, Warden, Victoria Park, Spadina, Bathurst, Dufferin, Keele, High Park, Dundas West and Islington on Line 2.

Similar asks will be made at St. Clair West, Eglinton West, Lawrence West, Yorkdale and Wilson on Line 1.

Sure, you can find a few stations where intensification is likely to be more gentle (maybe only as high as 8s), or preserving some heritage SFH etc.

Generally this owes to, (sometimes) meritorious heritage, to homes that are more expensive to assemble, to more difficult politics around approval, to more challenging lot sizes (particularly lot depth)etc.

In respect of that, do I foresee any 40s applications at Yonge/Lawrence soon? Nah, but there are and will be applications here, its just that the bump will be a bit softer, to 7s-15s right up against Yonge, and 6s-9s up against Lawrence.

Glencairn, particularly on the west side has a relatively short distance to Marlee, making the purchase, where feasible, of full depth to the Allen Parks more desirable, the land cost is cheaper, (not cheap) and there is less expected pushback.

Now, the east side of the Allen will be more interesting here. I still expect to see some intensification pressures, but the neighbourhood is shorter, has less precedent and a lot more $$$, someone will have have to a bit braver, but I still forsee at least someone upward pressure.
 
Johnny Au said:
249 Viewmount, if the owner finally decides to sell, even long after the development is complete, could be converted into a café. After all, former holdouts make for good cafés.
Click to expand...

Northern Light said:
Not really, no.

Stations are getting MTSAs that generally cover an area in/around 500M from a station entrance.

Those MTSAs will generally be permissive on density.

You can this in applications at Main Station for towers exceeding 50s, at Woodbine 30+s, at Pape, 40+s and so on.

There are or will be applications of which I'm aware for towers at or above 20s in height at, Kennedy, Warden, Victoria Park, Spadina, Bathurst, Dufferin, Keele, High Park, Dundas West and Islington on Line 2.

Similar asks will be made at St. Clair West, Eglinton West, Lawrence West, Yorkdale and Wilson on Line 1.

Sure, you can find a few stations where intensification is likely to be more gentle (maybe only as high as 8s), or preserving some heritage SFH etc.

Generally this owes to, (sometimes) meritorious heritage, to homes that are more expensive to assemble, to more difficult politics around approval, to more challenging lot sizes (particularly lot depth)etc.

In respect of that, do I foresee any 40s applications at Yonge/Lawrence soon? Nah, but there are and will be applications here, its just that the bump will be a bit softer, to 7s-15s right up against Yonge, and 6s-9s up against Lawrence.

Glencairn, particularly on the west side has a relatively short distance to Marlee, making the purchase, where feasible, of full depth to the Allen Parks more desirable, the land cost is cheaper, (not cheap) and there is less expected pushback.

Now, the east side of the Allen will be more interesting here. I still expect to see some intensification pressures, but the neighbourhood is shorter, has less precedent and a lot more $$$, someone will have have to a bit braver, but I still forsee at least someone upward pressure.
Click to expand...
East of the Allen and west of Bathurst I can only see developments like Marla on the Park having some success.

Eglinton West has been long overdue for a massive overhaul.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top