36 Eglinton West | 199.9m | 59s | Lifetime | Wallman Architects

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
3,864
Reaction score
8,096
Location
Turanna
Site Plan Approval application filed:

36 EGLINTON AVE W
Ward 8: Eglinton-Lawrence


Site Plan Approval to permit the redevelopment of the site for a 65-storey mixed-use building having a non-residential gross floor area of 545.9 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 44,620.0 square metres. A total of 663 residential units are proposed.
 

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,353
Reaction score
3,229
I'm confused, I thought the zoning application had been refused?
I too am confused. There was at least one other building in this state (staff recommending refusal) and yet the proponent went to get an SPA. What am I missing about the planning process/timeline?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
47,872
Location
Toronto/EY
I too am confused. There was at least one other building in this state (staff recommending refusal) and yet the proponent went to get an SPA. What am I missing about the planning process/timeline?

From the last refusal report.........the one for the OPA:

1651332286436.png


So they are filing the SPA to get ahead of the new Toronto Green Standards (tougher as of May 1) in case they win their case at OLT.

A Link to the above report for the convenience of everyone:


The hearing on the ZBA appeal is currently slated for September:

1651332529877.png
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
47,872
Location
Toronto/EY
Oh - I see. Thanks @Northern Light I thought all of these filings were strictly sequential and gated on success of the previous filing.

It's not uncommon to see ZBA and SPA together; a bit less common to see OPA as well as well at the same time.

To be clear, you can't get SPA (approval) where the applications above have failed in their totality.

It's really a risk-hedging thing; expend fees now to avoid future increased obligations/charges (at the risk of it being wasted money) vs
Waiting for the hearings on the previous refusal report, but if you win, you may have to eat a lot of extra $$.

Of note here, if you read the Case Management link is that both parties expressed interest in mediation, that was a few months back.

The SPA may or may not be reflective of how that negotiation is going.

****

There is a push now to get settlements done as well; as the last regularly scheduled City Council meeting is July, due to this being an election year.

There is some latitude for urgent meetings in Aug/Sept; but basically everyone is working to get everything that needs attention before Dec done by that July meeting.
 
Last edited:

tstormers

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
616
Reaction score
2,807
One of the main reasons they put in the application at that time was to beat the TGS V4 requirements that came into affect on May 1st 2022. Meaning that all projects submitted to the city after that day had to conform to the new standard which would have a lot of cost implications. Whereas submitting before they would use the TGSv3 standard (Toronto Green Standard - https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...icial-plan-guidelines/toronto-green-standard/ )
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
20,207
Reaction score
47,872
Location
Toronto/EY
Looks like this was finalized at 59 storeys in exchange for 3 storeys of office. Seems like a good compromise on both sides. Odd that there seems to be amenity on...P5??

A different type of pet amenity area? A Bat Cave? A COLA (Cayman Off Leash Area) LOL
 

Art Tsai

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 1, 2021
Messages
629
Reaction score
2,066
Location
Toronto, Ontario
The new rendering is updated in the database. The only project information changed from 65 to 59 storey and the height changed from 220.09m to 199.9m.

Rendering is taken from the database via council approval.
 

Attachments

  • backgroundfile-227045-1.jpg
    backgroundfile-227045-1.jpg
    823 KB · Views: 26

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
3,257
Surprised city planning didn’t recommend a height of 199.999 metres… I know some of you think it’s a conspiracy to torture the skyscraper geek lunatic fringe (I feel sorry for them).

Then again, the city started by messing with the 300 metre + supertall benchmark: YSL (now Concord Sky) knocked down to 298.99m, and today's news about some action on Sugar Wharf 2's tallest @ 299m,

Now they've moved on to the 200 metre+ skyscraper benchmark:

This tower knocked down to 199.9m, Freed's 240 Adelaide W knocked down to 199m, 260 Adelaide W was close @ 199.3m ... but alas, knocked down to 196.80m ...and others that I forget.

Don't get me started on the number of 149m to 149.9m projects we're already building.

Hang on... I just noticed a tiny XD Mini Video camera the size of a quarter, in my office ceiling. 😱
 
Last edited:

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
3,257
3Dementia you might be on to something but 199.9m is pretty tall for Y&E. Just saying...
*Surely 199.9m strikes you as a rather odd, purposeful number... a bit more suspect than say 199.45m? Maybe planning is just run like retail, where $299.99 has better optics than $300 bucks. 🤔

Still betting someone on the 12th floor is putin' (sic) coal in lots of stockings, all year long... likely sporting a stupid grin too. ;)

* I know, "don't call you Shirley"
 
Last edited:

Top