Toronto Crosstown Community | 135.02m | 44s | Aspen Ridge | Sweeny &Co

[DonValleyRainbow]

Is it possible they start with the towers but try to rezone the townhouse portion once DRL is approved.

It's because of this I am disappointed with the height and density. This should be significant given that it is going to be a big mobility hub and how much land they have to play with.

 

[interchange42]

Now that the DRP have told them they're missing mid-rise buildings to transition from the high-rise blocks to the low-rise ones, I bet they'll be looking for density increases (but not the height reductions to to the high-rises which the DRP also suggested).

42

 

[salsa]

I spend some time exploring the site as it exists today...



Part 1: 844 Don Mills Rd

This is a massive building surrounded by vast amounts of surface parking. The following two entrance blocks from the original building will be retained and relocated somewhere within the area.

Everything else will be demolished.

 

[salsa]

Part 2: 1150 Eglinton Ave E

This building on the other hand, I really like. I'm gonna miss it.

The plan is to retain two small portions of it. The westernmost part will be reused as a ravine activity centre. The eastern portion will become the base podium of a new residential building. Which is nice, but I wish they planned to preserve more of it.

 

[jje1000]

The heritage preservation aspect is definitely underwhelming- they should rebuild one of the facades of the IBM building for the community center (lots of wallspace there), and retain more of the Parkin building's facade since it is a building that relies more on rhythm and repetition than facade ornamentation.

Currently you lose that by preserving only one piece of the Parkin building, since it no longer works as a unified structure. Maybe a reproduced free-standing 'ghost' facade or screen of the south, valley-facing elevations might work?

 

[interchange42]

There's also been the criticism here of the missing middle: there are no mid-rises here, it's all low or high. Introducing some mid-rises might allow the retention and re-use or the re-construction of some exiting building facades as potions of mid-rise podiums.

42

 

[innsertnamehere]

Isn't the lowrise all stacked towns? That's essentially the definition of missing middle?

 

[interchange42]

The low-rise is certainly planned to be denser than traditional suburban single-family homes, but why no block of 8 to 12-storey buildings between the high-rise buildings and the stacked towns? That remains the missing middle here.

42

 

[innsertnamehere]

A transition in built form could be desirable, yes, but at the end of the day the final product delivered to end buyers in a midrise isn't all that different than a tower. Buyers are going to be living in a 650 square foot apartment regardless. My understanding is that the traditional use of the term "missing middle" references stacked towns, duplexes, etc., a sort of density that has been generally missing in Toronto. These built forms usually deliver a larger product for final purchasers.

 

[FMCS]

It's unfortunate that they're going to tear most of this down....I quite like this low rise building.

 

[interchange42]

A transition in built form could be desirable, yes, but at the end of the day the final product delivered to end buyers in a midrise isn't all that different than a tower. Buyers are going to be living in a 650 square foot apartment regardless. My understanding is that the traditional use of the term "missing middle" references stacked towns, duplexes, etc., a sort of density that has been generally missing in Toronto. These built forms usually deliver a larger product for final purchasers.

I'm thinking about it in terms of the missing building typology, and in terms of the moderately high density it would bring to parts of the site. The moderately larger units are taken care of here through the blocks of towns already.

42

 

[Tuscani01]

I'm thinking about it in terms of the missing building typology, and in terms of the moderately high density it would bring to parts of the site. The moderately larger units are taken care of here through the blocks of towns already.

42

Missing middle would be the wrong analogy then, as the housing type that defines the missing middle is much closer to single family housing than midrise buildings.

You're simply advocating for more midrise, which in itself is something which many probably agree with.

 

[interchange42]

Well, let's say the missing mid-rise then. Is there any reason that mid-rises couldn't contain larger suites, similar in size to what you might get in townhomes? Would it be the amenity space required in mid-rises that are not required for townhomes that might make them more expensive? If that is the only problem, then maybe we need to rethink the formula by which amenity space is calculated be rethought. The larger the suite per person living in it, the less necessary amenity space becomes.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

More importantly, all else being equal mid-rise is a more efficient use of land, particularly on a site that will be next to one, plausibly two mass transit lines.

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

There have been some pretty significant changes here. It's been scaled up and HPA have been added to the team...