1Ć0
Active Member
Retail plaza acquired by Hazelview Investments in August 2024. Can likely do a tower and midrise here. Not sure if 2 towers can fit.
Toronto 2912-2926 Sheppard Avenue East | 164.3m | 50s | Hazelview | a—A
- Thread starter 1Ć0
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
The above is on the north side of Sheppard, one lot east of Victoria Park Avenue:
Streetview:
Aerial Pic:
Site size is: ~3600m2 or about 40,000ft2
On its face, 2 towers cannot fit. Given separation distances between two towers, but also setbacks from the adjacent properties
Now, on the east side, the site is occupied by a slab-style extant rental building with surface parking. Assuming that building remains, I don't see a viable path for a new building on that parking lot, which could allow, in theory for a zero, or at least small'ish setback. However, even with this change, and assuming a N-S slab form orientation, I can't make 2 towers work, they would need the next door site that fronts Victoria Park for that.
The site to the north is also surface parking and very challenged to build-on as is........were a setback waived here...........there is a slight chance of positioning a second tower at the north end of the site, but floor plates would be smaller than normal.
Looking at all that surface parking, currently organized in a manner that doesn't work for development, leads me to think that the adjacent apartment complex would benefit from a merger to this site, and/or w/the site to the north of its north-west parking area, such that if a new building provided replacement underground parking, for the existing apartment, there would be room on a reorganized site for at least one additional tower. If optimized across all the contiguous sites, a net gain of two towers beyond what would otherwise be possible seems likely.
Streetview:
Aerial Pic:
Site size is: ~3600m2 or about 40,000ft2
On its face, 2 towers cannot fit. Given separation distances between two towers, but also setbacks from the adjacent properties
Now, on the east side, the site is occupied by a slab-style extant rental building with surface parking. Assuming that building remains, I don't see a viable path for a new building on that parking lot, which could allow, in theory for a zero, or at least small'ish setback. However, even with this change, and assuming a N-S slab form orientation, I can't make 2 towers work, they would need the next door site that fronts Victoria Park for that.
The site to the north is also surface parking and very challenged to build-on as is........were a setback waived here...........there is a slight chance of positioning a second tower at the north end of the site, but floor plates would be smaller than normal.
Looking at all that surface parking, currently organized in a manner that doesn't work for development, leads me to think that the adjacent apartment complex would benefit from a merger to this site, and/or w/the site to the north of its north-west parking area, such that if a new building provided replacement underground parking, for the existing apartment, there would be room on a reorganized site for at least one additional tower. If optimized across all the contiguous sites, a net gain of two towers beyond what would otherwise be possible seems likely.
Last edited:
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
Another Ward 22 commercial plaza to bite the dust. Sure, they are not the most urban-friendly with surface parking out front. But they provide affordable commercial space and local retail and services to the surrounding community. The non-residential spaces being proposed in these redevelopments are laughable, if there is any at all. Definitely does not replace what was there.
Anyways, if this plaza redevelops, it needs to include the property to the west. I'm indifferent to CIBC and Sunset Grill going away, arguable two businesses that can easily go into a ground floor commercial space.
Anyways, if this plaza redevelops, it needs to include the property to the west. I'm indifferent to CIBC and Sunset Grill going away, arguable two businesses that can easily go into a ground floor commercial space.
ferusian
Active Member
ZBA application submitted:
2912-2926 SHEPPARD AVE E
Ward 22: Scarborough-Agincourt
Development Applications
Project description:
Hazelview Investments + architects—Alliance: 50 storeys (164.30 metres including MPH)
Key statistics:
2912-2926 SHEPPARD AVE E
Ward 22: Scarborough-Agincourt
Development Applications
Project description:
Hazelview Investments + architects—Alliance: 50 storeys (164.30 metres including MPH)
Key statistics:
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I commented above on what one could squeeze in here, and that was dependent on how close you got to the lot lines, and whether or not you assumed you had to allow for any future infill on adjacent sites.
I note with interest here that this proposal is a N-S slab form, which I've suggested is generally more permissible vs an E-W oriented one for reasons related to shadowing, the floor plate here is a reach at 850m2.
That out of the way, lets have a look at their Block Context Plan and the assumptions it makes:
Let me close in now on the subject site (orange):
So this site does freeze out any potential for infill development on the adjacent lots to the east and north (while retaining the current apartment buildings).
One can ascertain this by looking at the separation distance and subtracting 40M (20m separation on each side) and finding the residual space too small for a viable building.
That's probably a justifiable position given that the current lots couldn't support infill on them, without this site, though it's not ideal planning as it preserves large surface parking into the indefinite future.
But the impact on the lot on the N/E corner of Sheppard and VP is more curious. They imagine you can still get a tower on that site, and show adequate separation.
I can't but help notice that the presumed floor plate of said tower looks a lot smaller than this one.
This tower is setback 14m from the west property line, so the suggested separation distance of 26.5m implies at 12.5 setback for the corner lot from its eastern lot line. Sounds fine.
That leaves 29M of lot width on the corner lot, IF there is a 0M setback from Victoria Park.
The extant building is setback 3.,3m at grade, I don't see the City allowing any change to that. Bousfields agrees and has allotted 5m
That would leave 24m.......... if you did a further 3m setback for the tower....... it could work.........but at 21m wide (this proposal is 18m wide for the tower)
This arguably compels a rectilinear form (slab or near-slab) for the corner lot. I wonder what Planning will think of that.
****
This is, to my mind, appovable, if you accept the assumptions above, but because of its impacts on future built form on adjacent lots, it really isn't ideal, something better could be delivered if this site were consolidated with adjacent properties.
I note with interest here that this proposal is a N-S slab form, which I've suggested is generally more permissible vs an E-W oriented one for reasons related to shadowing, the floor plate here is a reach at 850m2.
That out of the way, lets have a look at their Block Context Plan and the assumptions it makes:
Let me close in now on the subject site (orange):
So this site does freeze out any potential for infill development on the adjacent lots to the east and north (while retaining the current apartment buildings).
One can ascertain this by looking at the separation distance and subtracting 40M (20m separation on each side) and finding the residual space too small for a viable building.
That's probably a justifiable position given that the current lots couldn't support infill on them, without this site, though it's not ideal planning as it preserves large surface parking into the indefinite future.
But the impact on the lot on the N/E corner of Sheppard and VP is more curious. They imagine you can still get a tower on that site, and show adequate separation.
I can't but help notice that the presumed floor plate of said tower looks a lot smaller than this one.
This tower is setback 14m from the west property line, so the suggested separation distance of 26.5m implies at 12.5 setback for the corner lot from its eastern lot line. Sounds fine.
That leaves 29M of lot width on the corner lot, IF there is a 0M setback from Victoria Park.
The extant building is setback 3.,3m at grade, I don't see the City allowing any change to that. Bousfields agrees and has allotted 5m
That would leave 24m.......... if you did a further 3m setback for the tower....... it could work.........but at 21m wide (this proposal is 18m wide for the tower)
This arguably compels a rectilinear form (slab or near-slab) for the corner lot. I wonder what Planning will think of that.
****
This is, to my mind, appovable, if you accept the assumptions above, but because of its impacts on future built form on adjacent lots, it really isn't ideal, something better could be delivered if this site were consolidated with adjacent properties.
Last edited:
mferna
Active Member
In anticipation for a Sheppard Line 4 extension, a soaring 50-storey tower has been proposed at Victoria Park & Sheppard. https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2025/0...wer-proposed-victoria-park-and-sheppard.58573
Koops65
Senior Member
Last edited:
Bullshido
New Member
Question from a layperson here - when you say something better could be delivered if it were consolidated with adjacent properties, do you mean just the west corner lot? It doesn't look like much can be done with the surface parking to the north and the east, given on the east you have the garbage/loading area for the existing apartment and the north looks like an important ingress point from Victoria Park Ave.
How does City planning typically view slab buildings in your experience?
Northern Light
Superstar
The corner lot is certainly the easiest to reimagine.
The adjacent parking, for all intents and purposes, could only be put into play if the extant apartment buildings were also demolished and a larger area re-worked.
That's more expensive and nominally more difficult to get return-on-investment from..........but with a larger area, you can do more building, with different orientations and go much higher than what is currently present.
if the slab oriented east-west (so fully blocking the southern sun) that is generally frowned on.
They are more open to a North-south orientation, as this has less implication for shadowing etc. But depending on the site, they may still be concerned with how the massing is articulated, such that the building doesn't appear like a giant monolithic wall. This can addressed, as required, through cladding choices and/or play with modest set backs, or insets so as to make the building read better.
cateran
New Member
Virtual consultation scheduled for September 10th
events.teams.microsoft.com
Microsoft Virtual Events Powered by Teams
Microsoft Virtual Events Powered by Teams
events.teams.microsoft.com
Northern Light
Superstar
Lets work backwards here..............
This one has been appealed to OLT.
@Paclo
Also, updated plans were submitted back in June '25 and we missed'em.
I don't see any substantive changes, nor is the Cover letter helpful in that regard.
This one has been appealed to OLT.
Case Information
jus-olt-prod.powerappsportals.com
@Paclo
Also, updated plans were submitted back in June '25 and we missed'em.
I don't see any substantive changes, nor is the Cover letter helpful in that regard.
Not missed just not posted in-thread. The resubmission here was just to rectify an incomplete application, not posting those unless the movement on the file is significant in and of itself.
The Preservationist
Active Member
Shouldn't we get the Sheppard line 4 extension approved, funded and shovels in the ground before looking at this kind of density here?
Northern Light
Superstar
Owners (value-creation driven) and/or builders will happily build wherever makes financial sense to them.
Its a not a proposal from or by the City.
Line 4's extension is likely to move ahead, but obviously won't be delivered for many, many years. That said, we've got approved and under construction density kitty-corner that's similar in scale/height, so its pretty tough to argue, there, but not here.
There are issues w/this proposal which I outlined above, and which are reflected in the non-approval here thus far. The issue is less the density than the massing/form and the failure to properly integrate a plan that factors in adjacent parcels.
Bullshido
New Member
Do you think the developer appealed to the OLT because the City didn't give them the density they wanted, or had issues similar to what you pointed out before? 50 storeys does seem pretty ambitious for this site.