Discussion in 'Buildings' started by interchange42, Jun 16, 2017.
My bad - he's on the regular DRP - not the WT
From the Nov 15 WTDRP:
The courtyard is a little too tight for my tastes - would have preferred a slightly wider space compensated for by slightly increasing (1 floor?) the height of the LTC.
I'd like to see more retail uses on ground level.. move the kitchen and other Long term care related facilities to the second level..
I will be interested to see if the panel comments on the fact that the height is 3x what the secondary plan allows. Will they be less stringent because it is affordable housing? Does the building need to be a minimum of 29 storeys because the politicians determined how many affordable housing units they wanted to fit on the site?
Honestly though I am totally ok with it - it's going to be right by a Relief Line stop.
Can’t say I’m for the tower portion of this proposal. It’s too tall for the area. It doesn’t conform to the secondary plan and we chopped down 18 Eastern to 12 storeys, so why does this get more? It also overwhelms the historic school to the north. Also I thought we were past large, 100% affordable housing buildings as a planning concept.
Because there are only so many sites available for affordable housing, and it is imperative that we expand the supply? Plus this is "affordable" as in relatively cheap to purchase for a segment that is not well served by the private sector, not RGI housing.
Can't we have a mid rise community without a tall tower proliferating it? The other tall towers are more or less around the perimeter.
It's also Options for Homes. They build condos that are usually 20% cheaper than market rates (not that affordable really) and they are all duds in appearance.
I would be very disappointed if there was no tower on this site.
Proliferating is not the word you want, not sure which one you do though. This tower is on the perimeter of the West Don Lands too, so not sure what that point means either, unless you simply mean taller than anything adjacent to it.
20% cheaper than normal is a big deal, particularly when there aren't too many options for getting 30, 40, or 50% off market. Just what do you suggest?
I'd like to see Options get as much density here as makes sense. I don't know if that means 29 storeys exactly or if there's another height which would make more sense by some metric or other—the planners can hammer out the numbers—but if they aren't putting up the Taj Mahal here, boohoo: there's an affordable housing crisis in this city, and when weighing Option's architectural legacy against the average Toronto condo developer, there's no guarantee of an aesthetic triumph in comparison. This is on a streetcar line, may be close to a subway station in the future, doesn't look like it will cast onerous shadows on nearby low-rise homes, so let's go crazy, let's build something substantial here!