Toronto 260 Brimley | 14m | 3s | Mattamy Homes | Q4 Architects Inc

artyboy123

artyboy123

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
2,250
Reaction score
6,770
Location
Midtown
Taken from DevApp:

"Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments to facilitate a proposed plan of subdivision having a total area of 15.625 ha . The subdivision proposes new public roads, along with various blocks for 384 townhouse units (single block and back to back) along with future development blocks for an estimated 940 residential uses, parks, buffer and road widenings. Subdivision file no. 20 230363 ESC 20 SB."

DevApp Link: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=gLhHWFOZDp/3CFXKJGa52g==

Elevation Drawings taken from Architectural Plans:

PLN - Architectural Plans - JUL 6 2021-2.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - JUL 6 2021-4.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - JUL 6 2021-6.jpg
PLN - Architectural Plans - JUL 6 2021-8.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - JUL 6 2021-10.jpg


PLN - Architectural Plans - JUL 6 2021-12.jpg
 
Not bad density to pack in nearly 1000 townhomes. Based on the elevations, the design looks a bit dated, but that will also depend on colours and material choices.

Present use of the site appears to be industrial, so this could take a while to come to fruition.
 
Aerial pic of the site as is:

1629287303056.png


Concept Plan:

1629287485209.png


Additional observations:

1) While nominally the area looks like it has plenty of parks, if you exclude those north of the rail corridor which are largely inaccessible to residents on the south side, the parks here are mostly 'natural' and there is no nearby playground or sports field.
The reason for noting that is that the total proposed parkland provision is under 10% of the site area; it's also divided into two and shaped such that neither parcel could support a sports field.

2) The density fronting Brimley is too low, this should be a solid midrise site.

3) Way too many garage doors, very car centric design. If going for townhomes/SFH style construction, the interior should follow new urbanist principles, with rear lanes and garages facing them, or alternatively parking should be placed underground on a portion of the site.

4) In order to maximize uptake of transit, the consolidated park space should be at the west/rear of the site, pushing the density closer to the bus route.
 
Last edited:
It's reminiscent of their 743 Warden development with the street towns and B2B towns. This exception is the 743 Warden development has a mid-rise building fronting Warden. I agree with @Northern Light that it should be mid-rise along Brimley.

I understand why the parking is where it is adjacent to the rail corridor as generally buildings cannot be within 30m of a railway ROW. I noticed there was a report in the AIC relating to a crash wall which would allow a reduction in building setback or limit the need for a safety berm. I'd be ok with some parking for visitors but all the parking for the condo blocks is excessive. The reality is quite a few people here will have cars. But if you're living in one of those southern buildings along Brimley, that's a crappy walk to/from your vehicle.
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of SCC:


Applicant appealed in Feb '24 ; Staff seek to oppose at OLT.

Staff are 100% right on this one. Its a bad proposal.

Key problems highlighted by staff, this is a large site which triggers a requirement for 20% affordable housing .......... @HousingNowTO

The applicant is fuzzy on how that might be achieved.

The road network is currently proposed as private - contrary to City policy

The parkland is less than required and poorly situated and configured.

@Paclo is flagged as there was a resubmission here in Nov' 23.
 
Northern Light said:
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of SCC:


Applicant appealed in Feb '24 ; Staff seek to oppose at OLT.

Staff are 100% right on this one. Its a bad proposal.

Key problems highlighted by staff, this is a large site which triggers a requirement for 20% affordable housing .......... @HousingNowTO

The applicant is fuzzy on how that might be achieved.

The road network is currently proposed as private - contrary to City policy

The parkland is less than required and poorly situated and configured.

@Paclo is flagged as there was a resubmission here in Nov' 23.
Click to expand...

Easily put in a bit more density rather than these townhomes or row houses...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top