Solaris
Senior Member
great find ProjectEnd !!
these towers look sorta like smaller scale 18 Yorkville to me ~
... looks promisingToronto ANX | 48.07m | 13s | Freed | Teeple Architects
- Thread starter unimaginative2
- Start date
great find ProjectEnd !!
these towers look sorta like smaller scale 18 Yorkville to me ~
... looks promising
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
I like how the second floor of the podium building suggests a twain. I think they're on the wight twacks with this one.
urbandreamer
recession proof
Just looking at the renderings again http://www.regionalarchitects.com/330_dupont_street.html# made me recall a conversation I had with a Mocca employee last year--suggested they're thinking of moving to Dupont St when the current WQW building is redeveloped (condos iirc.)
Architecturefan
Active Member
Regional Architects are behind this one (which is part of aA)
Towered
Senior Member
Dupont is in need of a serious makeover for most of its length.
greenleaf
Senior Member
This site continues to get kicked around with different ideas. (I don't know what the new idea is, but I presume there is with this meeting)
328 Dupont Street Planning Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
7:00 – 9:00pm
Royal St George's College, Chapel
120 Howland Ave
Councillor Adam Vaughan invites you to a meeting about a proposed development at
328 Dupont Street. This application is for an amendment to the Official Plan, to allow mixed-use
in an area zoned as an employment area.
328 Dupont Street Planning Meeting
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
7:00 – 9:00pm
Royal St George's College, Chapel
120 Howland Ave
Councillor Adam Vaughan invites you to a meeting about a proposed development at
328 Dupont Street. This application is for an amendment to the Official Plan, to allow mixed-use
in an area zoned as an employment area.
Squeezing the Railway Corridors
By Isidoros Kyrlangitses
A high-rise complex is in the works for the Annex a few blocks west of Dupont station. The community recently gathered to learn more of the request to amend the official plan for several lots along Dupont. The proposal to change the designation from “an employment area” to one of “mixed-use”, got drowned out by the usual concerns for height, density, and intensification. The community’s discussion with city staff and the developer’s representatives sought details that were yet to be finalized. The meeting’s conversations seemed to miss what was at stake. By amending the official plan from “an employment area” that acts as a buffer for the neighbouring CP railway to “mixed-use”, the city is limiting the potential of the transportation corridor.
The developer argued that the block in question already had mixed usage of residential, commercial, and industrial. Changing the designation on the official plan would reflect the reality of the block. The city is often reluctant to change an employment area’s designation, because often the economics behind residential development crowds out the land-use diversity of a given area. The “mixed-use” designation offers the compromise of setting a minimum proportion of the development that must be commercial, while formally allowing residential units to be built on the site. The community had concerns for the details of what was to be built, but no one argued that the lots should not be designated “mixed-use”. After all, this was Jane Jacobs former community and who could argue with “mixed-use” of property.
A conceptual plan for the site was presented, but it avoided the specific details such as height or right-of-ways. Buildings of 29, 16, and 8 storeys were hinted at, but the heights are subject to change. The development surrounded several existing homes with concerns for access to lane-way parking and specifics on how their yards would be bordered.
The developer was aiming to increase density by 7 fold. Concerns were raised if there was adequate infrastructure, and as always parking to accommodate the density. The city felt the increased mixed-use density was in accordance with the with its Downtown Growth Plan. The site is at the northern edge of the area the Growth Plan encompasses.
The details of the development will be presented during the re-zoning process. The public will be able to address specific issues, and the developer will have a chance to negotiate and compromise with the community. But bringing specific site concerns to a request of changing designation on the Official Plan misses the big picture of why the designation existed in the first place.
The concerns stated by CPR hold a clue to what is at stake. CPR has 60 trains a day rolling through the neighbourhood. The new development proposes large towers adjacent to the railway. The residential units would be less than the 30m buffer required along railways. An “employment area” designation allows for that 30m buffer to be used by businesses, but discourages residential along the rail lines. Besides the obvious safety and nuisance concerns, the buffer offers potential for expanding the transportation corridor. Expropriating commercial and industrial land is easier than tearing down a condominium full of voters.
By changing the designation to “mixed use”, the city is surrendering any potential to expand that transportation corridor. Subway, commuter train, high-speed rail, maglev, or some unforeseen next best thing will be a difficult option along a transportation artery lined by condominium towers. Not that any transportation proposal existed for use of the transit corridor. No TTC, metrolinx, GO, or Via plans ever considered the railway corridor for expansion. Currently there is no reason outside of speculation to change the designation to “mixed-use” and allow for the intensification of the area.
The city’s objective is to intensify the area. Changing the designation to “mixed-use” is the first step. A Business Improvement Association is also being formed for the Dupont strip from Spadina to Bathurst. The objective is to fund a planning study to provide better direction on how to intensify. The proposed development is the first step to changing the area from a railway corridor to a hyper-dense neighbourhood that may find it worthwhile one day to cover up the rail lines with a park.
By Isidoros Kyrlangitses
A high-rise complex is in the works for the Annex a few blocks west of Dupont station. The community recently gathered to learn more of the request to amend the official plan for several lots along Dupont. The proposal to change the designation from “an employment area” to one of “mixed-use”, got drowned out by the usual concerns for height, density, and intensification. The community’s discussion with city staff and the developer’s representatives sought details that were yet to be finalized. The meeting’s conversations seemed to miss what was at stake. By amending the official plan from “an employment area” that acts as a buffer for the neighbouring CP railway to “mixed-use”, the city is limiting the potential of the transportation corridor.
The developer argued that the block in question already had mixed usage of residential, commercial, and industrial. Changing the designation on the official plan would reflect the reality of the block. The city is often reluctant to change an employment area’s designation, because often the economics behind residential development crowds out the land-use diversity of a given area. The “mixed-use” designation offers the compromise of setting a minimum proportion of the development that must be commercial, while formally allowing residential units to be built on the site. The community had concerns for the details of what was to be built, but no one argued that the lots should not be designated “mixed-use”. After all, this was Jane Jacobs former community and who could argue with “mixed-use” of property.
A conceptual plan for the site was presented, but it avoided the specific details such as height or right-of-ways. Buildings of 29, 16, and 8 storeys were hinted at, but the heights are subject to change. The development surrounded several existing homes with concerns for access to lane-way parking and specifics on how their yards would be bordered.
The developer was aiming to increase density by 7 fold. Concerns were raised if there was adequate infrastructure, and as always parking to accommodate the density. The city felt the increased mixed-use density was in accordance with the with its Downtown Growth Plan. The site is at the northern edge of the area the Growth Plan encompasses.
The details of the development will be presented during the re-zoning process. The public will be able to address specific issues, and the developer will have a chance to negotiate and compromise with the community. But bringing specific site concerns to a request of changing designation on the Official Plan misses the big picture of why the designation existed in the first place.
The concerns stated by CPR hold a clue to what is at stake. CPR has 60 trains a day rolling through the neighbourhood. The new development proposes large towers adjacent to the railway. The residential units would be less than the 30m buffer required along railways. An “employment area” designation allows for that 30m buffer to be used by businesses, but discourages residential along the rail lines. Besides the obvious safety and nuisance concerns, the buffer offers potential for expanding the transportation corridor. Expropriating commercial and industrial land is easier than tearing down a condominium full of voters.
By changing the designation to “mixed use”, the city is surrendering any potential to expand that transportation corridor. Subway, commuter train, high-speed rail, maglev, or some unforeseen next best thing will be a difficult option along a transportation artery lined by condominium towers. Not that any transportation proposal existed for use of the transit corridor. No TTC, metrolinx, GO, or Via plans ever considered the railway corridor for expansion. Currently there is no reason outside of speculation to change the designation to “mixed-use” and allow for the intensification of the area.
The city’s objective is to intensify the area. Changing the designation to “mixed-use” is the first step. A Business Improvement Association is also being formed for the Dupont strip from Spadina to Bathurst. The objective is to fund a planning study to provide better direction on how to intensify. The proposed development is the first step to changing the area from a railway corridor to a hyper-dense neighbourhood that may find it worthwhile one day to cover up the rail lines with a park.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
By the looks of it, these will be rental buildings..hopefully these slumlords take more care of these buildings than the bunch that they have owned down in Parkdale.
Old.. but gives you an idea..
http://www.ontariotenants.ca/articles/1997/ts-97e25.phtml
http://geocities.ws/wltenants/
Old.. but gives you an idea..
http://www.ontariotenants.ca/articles/1997/ts-97e25.phtml
http://geocities.ws/wltenants/
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Looks like its got shorter and now going to the OMB.
RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Proj: 9137279-1
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
PREPARING PLANS
328 Dupont St, M5R 1V9
$40,000,000 est
Note:
Preliminary planning is underway. Owner's representative has submitted official plan amendment (OPA) applications OPA to the city planning growth management committee March 2011. OPA approvals were not received. Owner will seek city council OPA and rezoning approvals mid-June 2011. It is anticipated the project will be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Schedules for working drawings, tender for general contractor and construction are undetermined pending approvals. Further update early winter 2011.
Project:
proposed construction of a mixed-use development. Proposed for the site are two buildings in phase one and a third building in phase two. Phase One. Building A proposes four floors of commercial/retail space and 25 floors of residential units. Building B is proposed to have eight floors of live/work units. Phase two, Building C proposes four floors of office/commercial space and 12 floors of residential units. 400 residential units are proposed overall. There will be a total of 107,000 sq ft of retail space and 340,000 sq ft of residential space.
Scope:
447,000 square feet; 29 storeys; 3 structures; 381 units;
http://www.dcnonl.com/cgi-bin/top10...bc7761eac4b1&projectid=9137279®ion=ontario
RESIDENTIAL, RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
Proj: 9137279-1
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON
PREPARING PLANS
328 Dupont St, M5R 1V9
$40,000,000 est
Note:
Preliminary planning is underway. Owner's representative has submitted official plan amendment (OPA) applications OPA to the city planning growth management committee March 2011. OPA approvals were not received. Owner will seek city council OPA and rezoning approvals mid-June 2011. It is anticipated the project will be forwarded to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). Schedules for working drawings, tender for general contractor and construction are undetermined pending approvals. Further update early winter 2011.
Project:
proposed construction of a mixed-use development. Proposed for the site are two buildings in phase one and a third building in phase two. Phase One. Building A proposes four floors of commercial/retail space and 25 floors of residential units. Building B is proposed to have eight floors of live/work units. Phase two, Building C proposes four floors of office/commercial space and 12 floors of residential units. 400 residential units are proposed overall. There will be a total of 107,000 sq ft of retail space and 340,000 sq ft of residential space.
Scope:
447,000 square feet; 29 storeys; 3 structures; 381 units;
http://www.dcnonl.com/cgi-bin/top10...bc7761eac4b1&projectid=9137279®ion=ontario
Check out our latest front page article on the planning process here.
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/06...city-emphasizes-preservation-employment-areas
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/06...city-emphasizes-preservation-employment-areas
drum118
Superstar
June 18
The sun was against me and forgot I had to go further west, but here is what the site looks like now.
While I was shoot, a CP train when by and it make you wonder why CP is putting up a stink over this project consider how close the existing building are there now.
The sun was against me and forgot I had to go further west, but here is what the site looks like now.
While I was shoot, a CP train when by and it make you wonder why CP is putting up a stink over this project consider how close the existing building are there now.
ladyscraper
man alive
It's nice to see anything by Wynn getting rejected. The way they conduct business and run their apartments around the city is criminal.
I actually have no problems with more density in my neighborhood but I wish only bad things to their company.
I actually have no problems with more density in my neighborhood but I wish only bad things to their company.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
328 Dupont St. (29s + 15s)
328 DUPONT ST
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District
Proposal for a rezoning application for two towers (East 29 storeys, West 15 storeys) with a combined total 560 residential units and 4 levels below ground for parking
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 15 110684 STE 20 OZ Jan 30, 2015 Under Review
328 DUPONT ST
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District
Proposal for a rezoning application for two towers (East 29 storeys, West 15 storeys) with a combined total 560 residential units and 4 levels below ground for parking
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 15 110684 STE 20 OZ Jan 30, 2015 Under Review
Last edited:
greenleaf
Senior Member
I'm pretty sure there's a thread for this somewhere. Wynn property. They tried to build a hotel/condo/artists subsidized housing complex here 4-5 years ago.
someMidTowner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Just look at that surrounding context on Street View... Pretty ambitious proposal.