Toronto Cricket Park Residences | 30.5m | 8s | Clifton Blake | Studio JCI

AlbertC

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
22,644
Reaction score
61,588
Location
Davenport
More intensification coming to the Dufferin & Eg area. The addresses involved begins on the NW corner one block west of the main intersection, where the TD bank is currently located and stretches all the way to 1920 Eglinton W, the "Tee Shirt People" store.

Interestingly, this consumes the rest of the block going up until this other development:

1924 Eglinton West | 30.48m | 8s | Clifton Blake | Studio JCI

1924 EGLINTON AVE W Ward 08 - North York District http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentApplications/associatedApplicationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=4520426&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false 8 storey mixed use building (2,040.10 sqm) containing 30 dwelling units, one ground floor retail...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca


app.toronto.ca

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. As of July 30th, the Application Information Centre has...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca


1886 EGLINTON AVE W
Ward 08 - North York District

Site Plan application to permit the proposal for a 8 storey mixed use building. The proposal has a total gross floor area of 14,078.5 square metres, resulting in a density of 5.8 times the lots area. A total of 200 residential units and one ground-floor retail unit are proposed. The proposal includes 70 underground vehicle parking spaces and 202 bicycle spaces (20 short-term and 182 long-term spaces).


1598817029598.png

1598817104800.png
 

Attachments

  • 1598817029110.png
    1598817029110.png
    1.3 MB · Views: 340
200 new homes with a high bike:car parking ratio along a new transit line should be an urban slam dunk. Yet by going from 9 retail units to just 1, this may end up a net negative for the urban experience along Eglinton.

It's high time to legislate standards for retail unit replacement / allowable street-facing shop width along the Avenues. Maybe not 1:1 replacement, but 1:9 is fully unacceptable.
 
soufflot said:
200 new homes with a high bike:car parking ratio along a new transit line should be an urban slam dunk. Yet by going from 9 retail units to just 1, this may end up a net negative for the urban experience along Eglinton.

It's high time to legislate standards for retail unit replacement / allowable street-facing shop width along the Avenues. Maybe not 1:1 replacement, but 1:9 is fully unacceptable.
Click to expand...

Agreed that more attention should be paid towards the precedents being proposed at grade level here. Having only one retail unit planned here sounds like it'll likely be for a bank or large format retailer chain. Or that a fair amount may be used for interior common amenity space. Which ultimately does little in providing a varied and engaging streetscape in the future. Considering how this consumes almost an entire block of the area along Eglinton, it should have ideally been broken down into at least 3 separate units.
 
Last edited:
This is likely the same developer as the proposal to the west, as they're currently using the adjacent retail units as a construction office for that project.
 
GenerationLee said:
Well thats disappointing for sure. Eglinton shouldn't be pushed off with less retail and activation due to lazy developments like this..this is just sad.
Click to expand...

Oh but people will insist that it won't matter because in the post-covid era brick and mortar retail will be dead.
 
Yikes. The density will be needed on Eglinton going forward but this is a disappointment. It would be so much better if we could limit the number of "main street" lots that developers can bundle into one building. It gets frustrating to see lively mixed use strips get levelled rather than evolving over time.
 
Nice work by JCI, but this is still going to be a chonky building.

This project would be better in every way if you left half the storefronts intact, and put a 25-storey tower on the other half. Better units, better urbanism, probably cheaper to build.

The Avenues policy is a bad policy.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Nice work by JCI, but this is still going to be a chonky building.

This project would be better in every way if you left half the storefronts intact, and put a 25-storey tower on the other half. Better units, better urbanism, probably cheaper to build.

The Avenues policy is a bad policy.
Click to expand...

From link.

...The Avenues policies in the Official Plan are intended to help the City direct growth to key main streets, and areas with existing infrastructure, including transit, retail, and community services, while protecting the character and stability of existing adjacent neighbourhoods. The character of growth that will occur through mid-rise built form will recognize the unique connection to these neighbourhoods through a development form that is moderate in scale and reflects high quality design and materials...
Click to expand...

Better than putting in sprawling parking lots.
 
What are the reasons why new condo builds have such bland retail? Will this change over time, or, are we condemned forever?
 
allengeorge said:
What are the reasons why new condo builds have such bland retail? Will this change over time, or, are we condemned forever?
Click to expand...

Condos want long-term tenants at (or above) market rates for the captive audience, often have a fast retail peak in the evening (rather drawn out through the day), and chains are the most likely to commit to 20+ year terms. By the very nature of large established chains, what they sell appeals to a wide audience and tend to be late in the cycle (established product line; not at all experimental).

Bland is a reflection of being late in the retail cycle. Dozens of big-name boring chains finding homes in condo retail today were weird and possibly even scary in the 90's (sushi for example).
 
So, the ^ makes sense - thank you. But then why wouldn’t landlords of smaller buildings make the same calculations? There seems to be something specific about condo retail that’s...unappealing and makes it more likely.

Have people proposed incentives/disincentives that make it more likely for condo retail to be improved?

I ask because (let’s say) this build had 9 retail units - it doesn’t seem like they’ll end up with the same mix of retail that’s there right now.

EDIT: BTW, I am a fan of the residential intensification along Eglinton. That street...needs some love - and density.
 
allengeorge said:
But then why wouldn’t landlords of smaller buildings make the same calculations?
Click to expand...

I think most small-time landlords jump at having Starbucks as a tenant when the opportunity presents itself. It's the tenant making the decision to locate in those locations rather than the landlord.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top