Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

MetroMan said:
I've seen enough to conclude that the city isn't acting in good faith and that this is one instance where the city proves that they're not mature enough to go without the OMB.

I hope that Mizrahi drops some of his own measures of good faith and goes to the OMB asking for the original height. Fix the lane issue by providing a Yonge Street driveway but that's the only issue I see that needs a resolution. The height and density are fine. If this intersection can't handle height and density, then no other intersecton in Toronto can — or in any city in Canada for that matter.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's unfortunate. But it seemed pretty clear to me based on the decision to defer approval at the TEYCC back in early May that a resolution wouldn't be achieved in a month given all of the meetings that have occurred in the past 15 months.

The laneway issue actually isn't even a planning issue... I'm pretty sure H&M currently doesn't receive any shipments via the laneway. Funny that the property owner is being uncooperative.
 
Stupidandshallow said:
The laneway issue actually isn't even a planning issue... I'm pretty sure H&M currently doesn't receive any shipments via the laneway. Funny that the property owner is being uncooperative.
Click to expand...

That's not the issue with the lane way. The problem is that the apartment complex behind The One is going to have to share a laneway that is already unsafe for the predominantly older residents. They have to play frogger because of cars going in and out of both laneways that isolate the apartment door on an island.
The retail nature of The One's parking is going to multiply that traffic up to unreasonable levels.

Another issue is that all that traffic is going to pile up on Balmuto waiting to get on to Bloor since there isn't a traffic light and it's too close to the lights at Yonge to add yet another signalled intersection.

A laneway off of Yonge might help but it'll create its own congestion issues. I think that the solution is a hybrid where there would be a single one way laneway from Yonge to Balmuto. Get in to parking via Balmuto, get out of parking on to Yonge with no left turn, only right turn on to Yonge southbound allowed.
 
MetroMan said:
That's not the issue with the lane way. The problem is that the apartment complex behind The One is going to have to share a laneway that is already unsafe for the predominantly older residents. They have to play frogger because of cars going in and out of both laneways that isolate the apartment door on an island.
The retail nature of The One's parking is going to multiply that traffic up to unreasonable levels.

Another issue is that all that traffic is going to pile up on Balmuto waiting to get on to Bloor since there isn't a traffic light and it's too close to the lights at Yonge to add yet another signalled intersection.

A laneway off of Yonge might help but it'll create its own congestion issues. I think that the solution is a hybrid where there would be a single one way laneway from Yonge to Balmuto. Get in to parking via Balmuto, get out of parking on to Yonge with no left turn, only right turn on to Yonge southbound allowed.
Click to expand...

Shhhhhhhhhh that is common sense and we all know that is not allowed.
 
MetroMan said:
That's not the issue with the lane way. The problem is that the apartment complex behind The One is going to have to share a laneway that is already unsafe for the predominantly older residents. They have to play frogger because of cars going in and out of both laneways that isolate the apartment door on an island.
The retail nature of The One's parking is going to multiply that traffic up to unreasonable levels.

Another issue is that all that traffic is going to pile up on Balmuto waiting to get on to Bloor since there isn't a traffic light and it's too close to the lights at Yonge to add yet another signalled intersection.

A laneway off of Yonge might help but it'll create its own congestion issues. I think that the solution is a hybrid where there would be a single one way laneway from Yonge to Balmuto. Get in to parking via Balmuto, get out of parking on to Yonge with no left turn, only right turn on to Yonge southbound allowed.
Click to expand...
Actually it is definitely one of the outstanding issues regarding the laneway and it isn't a planning matter. Truthfully I suspect the residents of 35 Balmuto will not be satisfied unless this application is cancelled. I suspect they would be equally up in arms if a midrise were proposed here...

But regarding traffic and congestion, staff did recommend approval of the proposal.

From the first staff report:
Access, Parking and Traffic Staff will review the Urban Transportation Considerations Report prepared in support of the proposal. The application and applicable studies have been circulated to Transportation Services. The proposal currently shows the closure and development on the private lane located between 1 and 11 Bloor Street West. Planning staff do not object to the closure of the vehicular lane, but staff have requested that the applicant provide more information regarding the rights of ways currently permitted over the private lane.

From the final staff report:
The residents of the condominium apartment building at 35 Balmuto Road have expressed particular concern with the traffic impact on the public lane and local road network resulting from the proposed development. Specifically, the Uptown Residences provided City Planning staff with a letter dated April 13, 2016, outlining its concerns and recommendation. The key recommendation from the Uptown Residences is to reduce the scale of the development and provide an alternative access to the subject site from Yonge Street or Bloor Street. Other recommendations relate to mitigation of the impact on the public lane and local road network.

Meeting No. 4 (February 29, 2016): Overview of All Issues
The applicant's traffic consultant then presented its updated assessment based on the reduction in overall residential units and parking spaces and the introduction of 2 car-share spaces. The consultant also updated the group that City staff was independently studying the Charles Street two-way conversion. The traffic consultant continued to suggest that the traffic signal at Balmuto Street and Bloor Street West would help pedestrian and vehicular movement but is not necessary for the application.

Much attention was placed on the internal circulation of valets and garbage through the building and the internal management of the loading elevators. Another concern raised was the beeping of the loading trucks reversing back onto the laneway...

Comments
To address the community's concerns regarding the increased traffic on the public laneway and the local streets, the applicant significantly reduced the number of proposed parking spaces on-site and reduced the number of parking levels. By purchasing and including the property at 760-762 Yonge Street (and not 764 Yonge Street at the time this report was written) as part of the site, the applicant has agreed to design the building and relocate and share vehicular access from 760-762 Yonge Street should the neighbouring properties be redeveloped in the future. The applicant will also provide the necessary knock-out panels to connect future developments to the west along Bloor Street West and south along Yonge Street to the retail concourse level and the parking garage. This will potentially reduce and centralise the number of vehicle ramps on the public laneway to one location along the widest portion of the public lane.

Traffic Impact Assessment
The project is estimated to generate approximately 105 to 110 two-way trips during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. BA Consulting Group Ltd. indicated in its report that the level of service at the unsignalized intersections of: Charles Street West and Balmuto Street; Balmuto Street and public laneways; and, Bloor Street West and Balmuto Street are forecast to operate at acceptable ranges, other than the northbound left turn at the Bloor Street West and Balmuto Street intersection. The northbound left turn movement will continue to operate with more extended delays and is forecast to operate with a level of service in the 'E' to 'F' range.

BA Consulting Group Ltd. analysed three scenarios to improve overall traffic and congestion in the area that include:
Scenario A Converting Charles Street West to two-way from Balmuto Street to Yonge Street;
Scenario B Signalizing the intersection at Bloor Street West and Balmuto Street; and
Scenario C Combined 'A' and 'B' - signalizing the intersection of Bloor Street West and Balmuto Street, and converting Charles Street West to two-way from Balmuto Street to Yonge Street.

Under the combined Scenario C, the intersection of Bloor Street West and Balmuto Street will operate with more efficiency. BA Consulting Group Ltd. has also conducted a signal warrant analysis at the Bloor Street West and Balmuto Street intersection, resulting in the intersection meeting the signal warrant. The City is currently assessing Scenario A. This report secures implementing Scenario B.

BA Consulting Group Ltd. undertook a traffic signal progression review of the Bloor Street West corridor in the vicinity of the subject site to review the appropriateness of the proposed signal at Balmuto Street and Bloor Street West and the potential impact on upstream and downstream traffic. BA Consulting Group Ltd. concluded that the proposed traffic signal would not impact traffic progression on Bloor Street West/East if appropriate intersection offsets are maintained.

The signals on Bloor Street West and East between Avenue Road and Sherbourne Street operate under the SCOOT (Split Cycle Offset Optimization Technique) central control system, an adaptive traffic system, which prioritizes traffic flows. Taking into account the projected site traffic volumes of the proposed building and the existing volumes, the installation of a new traffic control signal at the intersection of Balmuto Street and Bloor Street West will improve traffic conditions on the area road system.

The owner is required to pay for the cost of the installation of the traffic control signals. Prior to Site Plan approval, the applicant will be required to provide a certified cheque for $30,000 to cover the maintenance and operating costs of the traffic control signals for a period of 5 years.

Driveway Access and Site Circulation
The subject site is bounded by Bloor Street, Yonge Street to the north and east, and a U-shaped public lane to the south and west. All proposed vehicular and loading is to be from the public lane system (a lower order road), which complies with the standards in the City’s Access Management Guidelines.

The proposal complies with the Official Plan which states that new development will locate and organize vehicle parking, vehicular access, service areas and utilities to minimize their impact on the property and on surrounding properties and to improve the safety and attractiveness of adjacent streets, parks and open spaces by using shared service areas where possible within development blocks including public and private lanes, driveways and service courts and consolidating and minimizing the width of driveways and curb cuts across the public sidewalk.

Laneways, by their design and use, are not intended to function as streets. Laneways are narrower than streets, reducing the ability for vehicles to travel at high speeds. Therefore, traffic operations and maneuverability in laneways differ from a typical street.

To mitigate the conflict between vehicles exiting the parking garage, the applicant proposed an acceptable warning system near the top of the ramp that warns exiting motorists to watch for pedestrians in the area.

Oh, there's more... With such a glowing staff report, this will win at the OMB. Any further laneway concerns would not be addressed with a change to the application.
 
Last edited:
He has a positive staff report. If this actually goes to the board, it'll be a walk in the park.

This is exactly what the board is here for, when politicians decide to play politics with development projects.
 
Stupidandshallow said:
[...]The laneway issue actually isn't even a planning issue... [...]
Click to expand...

Stupidandshallow said:
Actually it is definitely one of the outstanding issues regarding the laneway and it isn't a planning matter.
Click to expand...

How a development functions, in particular how it is accessed by vehicles, and how it impacts the functioning of nearby buildings, most definitely is a planning matter. I don't have a substantive opinion on this laneway issue, simply because I am not sufficiently familiar with all of the facts, but I'm not sure what you mean when you keep saying this is not a planning matter.
 
Uptown's Res. Assoc. first and foremost concern is "it is toooooo big"!
Laneway issue is kinda trying to deflect that.
Pure politics.
 
Skeezix said:
How a development functions, in particular how it is accessed by vehicles, and how it impacts the functioning of nearby buildings, most definitely is a planning matter. I don't have a substantive opinion on this laneway issue, simply because I am not sufficiently familiar with all of the facts, but I'm not sure what you mean when you keep saying this is not a planning matter.
Click to expand...
Good point... I mean that whatever outstanding issue exists isn't an issue with the planning department/the application.
 
Last edited:
Also, I have noticed that the Toronto Community council agenda has not yet been posted for June, though the other 3 boroughs have been. I'm betting its being held back for this application.
 
cogito ergo said:
Uptown's Res. Assoc. first and foremost concern is "it is toooooo big"!
Laneway issue is kinda trying to deflect that.
Pure politics.
Click to expand...

Too big and traffic concerns pretty much go hand in hand. It is a very dense proposal with a high FAR and 300 something parking spaces at a congested intersection. I'd have concerns too if I live in Uptown.
 
maestro said:
Too big and traffic concerns pretty much go hand in hand. It is a very dense proposal with a high FAR and 300 something parking spaces at a congested intersection. I'd have concerns too if I live in Uptown.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between having concerns and having valid concerns.
Bausfield's Traffic Study pretty much addresses this issue.
Most deliveries will not be taking left turns into Balmuto from Bloor.
Charles St. provides good access route.
BTW Manulife's u/ground parking has a capacity of what?... around 1500.
I don't think it is a huge issue there.
 
I don't really know what has been presented to the condominium to appease their concerns or really care to discuss it. That said, one traffic study doesn't simply invalidate any concerns. For instance, I can dredge up a traffic study or two that prove completely off the mark. I'm not suggesting further analysis is needed either. See above. Maybe all is needed is further explanation.

I don't quite get the comparison to Manulife as the complex has a huge loading/parking entrance directly on Charles.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top