Toronto 265 Balliol | 91.43m | 27s | Park Property | BDP Quadrangle

PMT

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
8,992
Location
Turanna
265 BALLIOL ST
Ward 22 - Tor & E.York District

►View All Properties

Zoning By-law Amendment application to facilitate the construction of a 29-storey rental residential tower: height 90.35 metres (95.83 metres including the mechanical penthouse) containing 264 purpose-built rental units and 135 below grade parking spaces and a total residential gross floor area of approximately 22,507 square metres.. The existing 26-storey residential building, containing 202 rental units, will be maintained on the easterly portion of the subject site, as will the existing below-grade parking garage (98 parking spaces).

Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---

Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 17 223999 STE 22 OZ Aug 28, 2017 Under Review
 
upload_2017-8-29_13-42-21.png
upload_2017-8-29_13-46-16.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-8-29_13-42-21.png
    upload_2017-8-29_13-42-21.png
    1.9 MB · Views: 2,315
  • upload_2017-8-29_13-46-16.png
    upload_2017-8-29_13-46-16.png
    3.4 MB · Views: 2,509
It's too bad there is no retail in the base of this building. Would definitely be nice as people in this area have to walk close to Yonge or over to Mt. Pleasant to find anything.

Still a great redevelopment. Countdown to councillor Matlow coming out against it.
 
Details of the project on the front page, here, and the database file's now linked up top.

42
 
Of course. Heaven forbid we get purpose-built rental stock in this city. It should be cut shorter, and converted into luxury condo units, to appease the local councilor and city planning.

The report does cite failure to comply with the tall building guidelines though. In that regard, the applicant should have known better.
 
WislaHD said:
Of course. Heaven forbid we get purpose-built rental stock in this city. It should be cut shorter, and converted into luxury condo units, to appease the local councilor and city planning.

The report does cite failure to comply with the tall building guidelines though. In that regard, the applicant should have known better.
Click to expand...
It's a little short of the 25m sepertion distance required in the TBG but I think that's fine as the overlook issue that the 25m seperation is mean to prevent is mitigated by having the adjacent building at a 45° angle. I think Staff's big issue here is that it does not meet OPA 405. OPA 405 borders on draconian policy, especially with the last minute council amendments that were passed around yonge and eglinton.

Mind you I fully expect the PCs to strike it down, it's an exact opposition to their whole "increase housing supply" mantra - but in the mean time planning is weighing proposals against it.

And don't get me wrong - OPA 405 has a lot of great things related to parks planning, community services, public realm planning (The eglinton greenway is problematic but that's another matter), etc., but its built form policies are extremely strict in Davisville and Yonge-Eglinton.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top