Toronto Long Branch Tower | 143.4m | 43s | Toronto Standard | Studio JCI

[Northern Light]

It's so disappointing this attitude exists even on this forum.

I would be no happier at the takes offered in your post.

I don't how many times it needs to get repeated to NIMBYs why this kind of build happens in the first place

You just called one pro-development member here a NIMBY and by default you did the same to many others, myself included. That's not only needlessly antagonistic, it's a way to make allies into enemies.

. Literally nothing can get built on that sea of single-family homes. Literally nothing. Ask any developer whether they can make any kind of return there and they will tell you it's frankly impossible.

I feel confident that I know a lot more developers than you. I can also show you hundreds of single-family homes that have been torn down for development for which we have threads here on Urban Toronto.

If you were to restrict your comments more tightly to state that in the past, the interior of yellow belts have generally been difficult for the introduction purpose-built rental, other than secondary suites, and intensification greater than 2 storeys that would be reasonably fair.........but you ran way past that.

There are no returns to be had for developers to convert a single family house to gentle density when they have to fight hoards of 50+ year old angry boomers who bought their houses for 7 raspberries in the 60s, plus all kinds of inane time-consuming city regulation just to convert 1 unit into 4.

Except you don't, multiplexes are now as-of-right. Yes, that's very recent, and yes, there are still some hiccups to be worked out......but there is no need as of now for any community consultation on converting an SFH in a 'neighbourhood' to a multiplex.

The maximal returns are being had in condos because after fighting hoards of angry boomers, fighting city hall for all kinds of measly regulatory rubbish like traffic, sun and wind studies that nobody frankly cares about, they can get a marginal ROI when they can build 400 units at once.

None of that is rubbish and that entire statement reads terribly. Toronto has some of the worst traffic congestion on earth; there are many profoundly uncomfortable wind tunnels along sidewalks as well, I'm a decently big, strong, guy, I'm not blowing over at a light breeze, I've faced wind tunnels where I found any forward motion at all a challenge; imagine the impact on a woman, a smaller man or a child.

If you don't like it, call your local counselor and make it clear there's a need for zoning, regulatory speedups and reform.

There's been nothing but reform for the last several years; and someone who has been involved it making it happen, I utterly resent the suggestion that there hasn't been any.

a) The angular plane and transition/overlook policies have been reformed to be far less onerous and more flexible.

b) Parking minimums were abolished.

c) Multiplexes are now as-of-right.

d) Development charges for small applications have been greatly reduced or eliminated.

e) Mid-rises are now as-of-right on many major roads, with more of that coming, including to this section of Lakeshore.

Toronto has one of the most reform-minded and friendly Planning Departments going at this point, and a Council, that with some grumbling and small exceptions is adopting most of those reforms.

 

[Amare]

It's so disappointing this attitude exists even on this forum.

I don't how many times it needs to get repeated to NIMBYs why this kind of build happens in the first place. Literally nothing can get built on that sea of single-family homes. Literally nothing. Ask any developer whether they can make any kind of return there and they will tell you it's frankly impossible.

There are no returns to be had for developers to convert a single family house to gentle density when they have to fight hoards of 50+ year old angry boomers who bought their houses for 7 raspberries in the 60s, plus all kinds of inane time-consuming city regulation just to convert 1 unit into 4. The maximal returns are being had in condos because after fighting hoards of angry boomers, fighting city hall for all kinds of measly regulatory rubbish like traffic, sun and wind studies that nobody frankly cares about, they can get a marginal ROI when they can build 400 units at once.

If you don't like it, call your local counselor and make it clear there's a need for zoning, regulatory speedups and reform.

@Northern Light went into some good detail into breaking down your short-sighted commentary and took the time out of his very busy day to do so.

So since you felt the need to make a short-sighted comment, here's what i'll say.

1) Nice try, but no I am not a NIMBY or anywhere close to being one. I'll support development projects where they are appropriate, and oppose them where they make little sense and are completely out of scale/context to what a neighbourhood can accommodate.

2) It's fully possible for a developer (specifically this one) to make a return on their investment without proposing a jumbo pilled tower because they think they can get away with it without taking into context anything else that exists in the area, with the exception of a train station. If that wasnt the case, we wouldnt being seeing mid-rise builds, or stacked townhouses, or townhouses, etc. The degree to each form of build will vary, so your commentary on that is flat out wrong. Not to mention, this project isnt being built on a "sea of single family homes".

3) You've yet to offer any specifics on why you think this build is appropriate for this neighborhood. So until such time, there's no point in me wasting time debating your generalized and misplaced commentary.

 

[rdaner]

^Nothing like a new proposal to get the blood boiling!

I am indifferent to this but will add one observation that this has with other similar proposals and that is of ‘appropriateness’ as a reason for opposition. Barring shadow impacts which are real much else about this favourite complaint has more to do with class/ego/world-weariness. The infrastructure in the area can support the density of this project. As a built form it is a departure from adjacent areas but doesn’t actually affect the current residents lives by much. Aesthetic fads are not something the State should really be pressured into protecting.

Fear of change is a common and understandable emotion but so far I have yet to hear/read convincing arguments of true, measurable harm of this proposal. All of this nattering is nicely summed up in ‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ and it should be required reading for everyone but especially NIMBYs and developers! Maybe much of the low density built form is no longer appropriate for 2024, polycentric urban region life?

And the presence of the GO station and its externalities is the biggest factor by far of many and should not be ignored. The economics and geography of world have changed since much of this area was first built and this proposal is a reflection of that realty.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

As I've indicated, I can see why the developers here wants to do this, I am not sure they can or should do this.

 

[rdaner]

^It is the tension between the two forces that will create a compromise; progress!

 

[dplainview]

Barring shadow impacts which are real much else about this favourite complaint has more to do with class/ego/world-weariness.

Worth noting that this proposal is well-placed to minimize shadow impacts. To its north are Lake Shore Blvd. West, the Browns Line off-ramp, some homes to the south of the rail that are designated Apartment Neighbourhoods, and the rail itself. You have to go pretty far north before you hit anything the City considers sensitive to shadows, at which point any marginal shadow is very fast-moving.

More height means more homes. If negative externalities are minimized, we should really push for as many as we can get near a major transit station.

 

[jmi22]

3) You've yet to offer any specifics on why you think this build is appropriate for this neighborhood. So until such time, there's no point in me wasting time debating your generalized and misplaced commentary.

Housing, housing is good and a requirement for human life. Is that a good enough reason?

 

[Northern Light]

Housing, housing is good and a requirement for human life. Is that a good enough reason?

No.

****

Drinking water is essential for human existence, a woman playing a silly game (contest) managed to drown herself (to death) by drinking too much of it, too quickly.

Unlimited volumes of water outside the body also kill, we call them floods.

****

Just because something is useful does not mean that you want unlimited amounts of it, or that you want it just anywhere.

The time for a surgeon to eat a slice of pepperoni pizza is not when your chest is cut open and he/she is operating on you.

****

I firmly oppose all ideas not grounded in evidence.

****

Buildings don't have particular scales or sizes to amuse those with a Sim City fetish, they have these because they match the level of supporting infrastructure that's been planned based on current and future housing.

That means roads, transit, sewer, water, parks, fire department, hospitals, school and employment lands, amongst other things.

To simply, randomly plop down a 43 storey tower without giving proper weight to all that, and more is bad planning and bad development.

Said by someone who is pro development and lives in a hirise!

 

[jmi22]

i think alot of those strip plazas on lakeshore all the way from long branch to mimico can be replaced with midrises just like on queensway. im all for height, but this is a little much.

Is this such a style of development going to adequately meet demand for housing in the neighborhood, and city as a whole? I guess this may vary between people but in my opinion residential developments primary goal is to delivery a satisfactory* level of housing supply for the amount of demand that exists, with aesthetic desires for a 'mid rise' corridor or x storey streetwalls being of lesser importance.

I would roughly define satisfactory as seeing a decline in rents as occurred in the Twin Cities following up zoning*

 

[Amare]

Housing, housing is good and a requirement for human life. Is that a good enough reason?

Food is also a requirement for basic human life, does that mean one should be eating hot dogs and hamburgers every day to survive, when there are other options available to a person?

There are other forms of development available, we are not choosing between a 43 story tower and nothing.

So to answer your question, no that's not a good reason.

 

[jmi22]

****

Buildings don't have particular scales or sizes to amuse those with a Sim City fetish, they have these because they match the level of supporting infrastructure that's been planned based on current and future housing.

That means roads, transit, sewer, water, parks, fire department, hospitals, school and employment lands, amongst other things.

To simply, randomly plop down a 43 storey tower without giving proper weight to all that, and more is bad planning and bad development.

Said by someone who is pro development and lives in a hirise!

I agree putting humongous amounts of housing in essentially the middle of nowhere is a bad idea, the recent proposals for 4 x 50 storey towers out on some brownfield site in Pickering next to the 401 comes to mind, and is extremely bad land use. Same goes for the 60 storey towers planned for the bad boy warehouse off the 400 in Vaughn. However Long Branch (and the Lakeshore villages generally) are not that, and have the best bones for intense urbanization of any area outside the Old City, with the exception of maybe Weston + NYCC.
In terms of infrastructure, the majority of Long Branch, and the neighborhoods of south Etobicoke as a whole have been shedding population for 50 years. Sewage, roads and streetcar capacity are currently overbuilt for the amount of people living with them. The reason for the tract this site specially is in showing modest population growth is a result of the point tower built slightly further west down Lakeshore, which shockingly, was also lambasted by residents as being 'out of place'.

 

[jmi22]

Food is also a requirement for basic human life, does that mean one should be eating hot dogs and hamburgers every day to survive, when there are other options available to a person?

There are other forms of development available, we are not choosing between a 43 story tower and nothing.

So to answer your question, no that's not a good reason.

I take joy in the fact the OLT does not engage in such intellectually fruitful discussions as 'a tower that I think is too tall is a hamburger' and this will building will almost certainly grace the skyline with a decade.

Anyways I won't say anymore as I think we are a few posts from the admins intervening anyways.

 

[Young_Developer]

Let's contrast this proposal against the Caledonia GO station area. There are several proposals at that node above 40 storeys, with some of the major masterplans reaching to 50-60 storeys (see the Beltline Yards post from today). The rationale for development in both nodes is pinned to the nearby GO stations. I believe that this site offers superior roadway infrastructure compared to Caledonia (width or roadways and proximity to highways).

 

[interchange42]

I take joy in the fact the OLT does not engage in such intellectually fruitful discussions as 'a tower that I think is too tall is a hamburger' and this will building will almost certainly grace the skyline with a decade.

Anyways I won't say anymore as I think we are a few posts from the admins intervening anyways.

Well assessed.

42

 

[Amare]

Let's contrast this proposal against the Caledonia GO station area. There are several proposals at that node above 40 storeys, with some of the major masterplans reaching to 50-60 storeys (see the Beltline Yards post from today). The rationale for development in both nodes is pinned to the nearby GO stations. I believe that this site offers superior roadway infrastructure compared to Caledonia (width or roadways and proximity to highways).

The thing with Caledonia GO area is that it will be an interchange between the Crosstown Line and the Barrie line, so it makes more sense for the higher density we see being proposed in that area. You have the Crosstown which will offer a high capacity and frequent service, combined with the Barrie line. Here you only have Long Branch GO, the 507 streetcar route, along with a couple local bus routes which can be an inconsistent mess at times. Thus the reason i support the increased density, but not at this level.

Dont be deceived by how the road network "looks" here per se, the Lake Shore and Brown's Line intersection can be a clogged mess during the rush hour with cars trying to funnel east and west from the Brown's Line off ramp. This leads to back ups heading both towards Mississauga, and to the northbound Brown's Line off-ramp. Then add streetcars to the mix and it becomes an even bigger mess. The TTC even realizes the problem and were looking into implementing queue jump lanes for streetcars entering Long Branch Loop (plan's which I believe are deferred for now).

But not to worry, the developer didnt take any of this into account when proposing vehicle access right in front of an intersection that's already a mess at various times of the day. As i've mentioned before, i'll go as far as saying their vehicle access proposal is outright dangerous.