Toronto Broadview and Danforth | 119.45m | 35s | Choice Properties | superkül

I was just at this store today, it's a lot smaller than the other Loblaws I usually go to (Jarvis & Queens Quay and Carlton St). The west / south facing units here would basically have the skyline views from Riverdale Park East, even from the lower floors - should be in high demand.
 
The neighborhood is very NIMBYish. Then-councillor Jack Layton proposed a homeless shelter at Broadview and Fairview in the early 2000s and all hell broke loose. When he moved onto the federal scene, he usually lost that local poll due to the remnant fallout.
 
ferusian said:
ZBA application submitted:

Development Applications

Project description:


In addition to Loblaws, the development site includes 682-688 and 740-742 Broadview Ave:

View attachment 342300

View attachment 342301
Click to expand...

superkul: 35 storeys (118.7 metres including MPH)

1629840216600.png


1629840452333.png


1629840522946.png


1629840292358.png


1629840431779.png


Aerial perspective:

1629840675565.png


Key statistics:

1629840762507.png


Landscaping site plan + renderings (PUBLIC WORK):

1629840884884.png


1629840843660.png


1629840953651.png


1629840992924.png


1629841054387.png
 
Nice organic forms befitting its setting, the gold/brown colour scheme is most welcome, the new trail down to the valley floor will improve access to Riverdale Park North from Danforth & Broadview and the plaza will be a new neighbourhood gathering place. Now let’s see what the NIMBYs have to say about this ...
 
Rascacielo said:
Nice organic forms befitting its setting, the gold/brown colour scheme is most welcome, the new trail down to the valley floor will improve access to Riverdale Park North from Danforth & Broadview and the plaza will be a new neighbourhood gathering place. Now let’s see what the NIMBYs have to say about this ...
Click to expand...

Not in Choice's purview........but removing that damned DVP on-ramp at the base of the slope would be a magnificent move here.

It's not needed (there's DVP access on the other side of the viaduct.)

It would make cycling/walking across the viaduct much safer.

Removing it would allow restoration of the original valley there, maybe even some stream surfacing.

1629845138331.png


taken from: https://www.lostrivers.ca/content/Ravinesreach.html
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Not in Choice's purview........but removing that damned DVP on-ramp at the base of the slope would be a magnificent move here.

It's not needed (there's DVP access on the other side of the viaduct.)

It would made cycling/walking across the viaduct much safer.

Removing it would allow restoration of the original valley there, maybe even some stream surfacing.

View attachment 343723

taken from: https://www.lostrivers.ca/content/Ravinesreach.html
Click to expand...
Does the on-ramp on the Bloor side of the viaduct provide access to northbound DVP?
 
Rascacielo said:
Does the on-ramp on the Bloor side of the viaduct provide access to northbound DVP?
Click to expand...

Northern Light said:
Yes it does.
Click to expand...

Rascacielo said:
Didn’t know that. All this time when friends pick me up heading to the DVP, they always use the on-ramp at the Danforth end. I agree that it’s not needed then, plus it’s a hazard for cyclists and pedestrians.
Click to expand...
Though I think the Bloor side northbound ramp is only for traffic going west on Bloor. Eastbound traffic can't access it as far as I can tell. Not arguing that it should stay.
 
Undead said:
Though I think the Bloor side northbound ramp is only for traffic going west on Bloor. Eastbound traffic can't access it as far as I can tell. Not arguing that it should stay.
Click to expand...

That's correct. The way in which access to the ramp is configured, you can only go WB on Bloor to the DVP on the west side, and EB on Bloor to the DVP on the Danforth side.

But there is no structural reason it has to be that way.

The ramp itself is 2-way on the west side.

What is not 2-way, is access to said ramp.

But that's not a complicated fix, there is public land available to make the requisite changes.
 
I absolutely love the way it swoops around the houses and frames them. The whole shape of this is great. Feels very very nice and natural with the curvature of the river and the land around this and I think it'll look quite nice as view across the valley from the other side as well and crossing the bridge.

I imagine this will face quite a bit of opposition, but it seems to be an entirely appropriate place for this kind of density and a really nice building and as can be seen in the renders above there are plenty of other apartment buildings from past decades where we built more housing and they blend in just fine and don't dominate or ruin the neighbourhood at all.
 
concrete_and_light said:
I absolutely love the way it swoops around the houses and frames them. The whole shape of this is great. Feels very very nice and natural with the curvature of the river and the land around this and I think it'll look quite nice as view across the valley from the other side as well and crossing the bridge.

I imagine this will face quite a bit of opposition, but it seems to be an entirely appropriate place for this kind of density and a really nice building and as can be seen in the renders above there are plenty of other apartment buildings from past decades where we built more housing and they blend in just fine and don't dominate or ruin the neighbourhood at all.
Click to expand...

There will always be cranks.

But I think this one checks a hell of a lot of boxes even for some change-resistant locals.

The heritage is saved, the scale of the tower is not particularly imposing on Broadview, shadowing shouldn't be a serious issue; the architecture is notably above average, its replacing dreck, the supermarket will return, the valley is restored..........

Directly adjacent are either rental apartments or commercial, neither of which will be overwhelmed.

Across the street is largely 2-4 storey commercial, and a 7-storey Woodgreen building. There are a smatter of SFH to the south of that, before a hirise Tower-in-the-Park.

This seems pretty well crafted.
 
I absolutely love everything about this proposal. Clearly everything was carefully well thought out: from the heritage retention, to the ravine integration, to the recreational connections/flow, the plaza/park space which provides a nice buffer to the heritage houses, the substantial but non-overbearing density close to a neighboring transit station. And i haven't even got to the design which is just stunning.

Sure there could be some minor revisions, but this should be an instant approval there's very little I have beef with.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top