Toronto 1837 Bayview | 100.6m | 27s | Gupta | Arcadis

The design and scale of this monstrosity of a building does not fit the neighbourhood at all especially with a low rise church across the street. The neighbourhood gets a construction site for 3 years, car traffic, noise and debris. There's no pubic realm, no middle class housing but the developer and insider friends get all the profits and walk away while the neighbourhood gets stuck with an eyesore and all the added traffic that a parking garage entrance on Broadway will bring. Where are the mid rise building the city's plan calls for?? The Gupta architects and their corporate paymasters should be ashamed of themselves for putting this proposal forward and sticking the neighbourhood with terrible design for decades to come...
 
Preliminary Report on this one to the February 23rd meeting of NYCC.


The 'Issues' section here is interesting.

Its very long (nearly 2 full pages, that's among the longest I've seen); much of it, however, is pro-forma stuff; and for the most part, they seem to take the proposed height in stride, with some concerns
around transition.

I'll screenshot the whole list in a moment.

What jumps out to me is a quiet one on height:

1644504947488.png


Also single out in a high profile way is the need for strong retail along Bayview; and a better streetscape.

1644505057408.png

1644505086792.png

1644505117958.png

1644505136543.png
 
As expected, the traditional mid-town NIMBY freak-out has begun amongst the Leaside-Lifers...

1645747526044.png


1645747601793.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
Street signs are going up too... from the usual Leaside-Lifers...

View attachment 392508
Click to expand...

They're not wrong; but the problem is there is only 1 tall building. Build out a bakers dozen and a smattering of mid-rise.

IMO, zoning should be much more equation/as-of-right based, with higher density automatically granted based on distance to higher-order-transit stops with suitable facilities (sewer, water-main, etc.) and with other firm restrictions layered over-top (shadowing of pre-identified protected spaces, flight-paths, etc.)
 
Last edited:
To be fair to the Leasider's I'd rather not have a Gupta developed building at any height, anywhere; they usually are bad planning/design/architecture and public realm.

If this was handed over to a better firm, it would be a much less challenging sell.

I would then add that the Planning report does raise several concerns, some of which relate to height, some of which do not.

I will be the first condemn mindless nimbyism; but I will also just as quickly condemn tall building cheerleading, that isn't grounded in the realities of what's proposed.

I'm not going to suggest that a better building, even of slightly more more modest height wouldn't attract reactionary response.

But I do think it would attract less; and be easier to defend.

****

The appropriate benchmark here is this proposal:

Leaside Common | 29.98m | 9s | Gairloch | BDP Quadrangle

1718 BAYVIEW AVE Ward 15 - North York District Development Applications Zoning Bylaw Amendment applicaiton to permit a 9 storey mixed-use, mid-rise building with 123 residential units including townhouse units. The proposal would have a total of 77 parking spaces located on two levels of...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

High quality architecture, 9 storeys, closer to Eglinton than this Gupta building.

I'm not going to suggest the limit here is 9s; but if that's the jumping off point, the ask here is almost 3x as much for a much less thoughtful offer.
 
Northern Light said:
To be fair to the Leasider's I'd rather not have a Gupta developed building at any height, anywhere; they usually are bad planning/design/architecture and public realm.

If this was handed over to a better firm, it would be a much less challenging sell.

I would then add that the Planning report does raise several concerns, some of which relate to height, some of which do not.

I will be the first condemn mindless nimbyism; but I will also just as quickly condemn tall building cheerleading, that isn't grounded in the realities of what's proposed.

I'm not going to suggest that a better building, even of slightly more more modest height wouldn't attract reactionary response.

But I do think it would attract less; and be easier to defend.

****

The appropriate benchmark here is this proposal:

Leaside Common | 29.98m | 9s | Gairloch | BDP Quadrangle

1718 BAYVIEW AVE Ward 15 - North York District Development Applications Zoning Bylaw Amendment applicaiton to permit a 9 storey mixed-use, mid-rise building with 123 residential units including townhouse units. The proposal would have a total of 77 parking spaces located on two levels of...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

High quality architecture, 9 storeys, closer to Eglinton than this Gupta building.

I'm not going to suggest the limit here is 9s; but if that's the jumping off point, the ask here is almost 3x as much for a much less thoughtful offer.
Click to expand...
LEASIDE_STATION_FUTURE_METROLINX.png


The SE corner of Bayview & Eglinton is on of the few Ontario Line station boxes that has actually been designed to support a tower development above. It will likely need a MZO - but that's the kind of height and density that corner needs.
 
HousingNowTO said:
View attachment 393175

The SE corner of Bayview & Eglinton is on of the few Ontario Line station boxes that has actually been designed to support a tower development above. It will likely need a MZO - but that's the kind of height and density that corner needs.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that design feature; and a bit more about that...................but I digress..

The corner will have an easier go of it, because it's a low-point geographically, its immediate neighbour, a school-yard, is to the east/south-east and unlikely to experience significant shadows during school hours; and because generally major intersections are accepted as high-points on the landscape.

There's a bit more I may have to say about this corner at some point............LOL; but not yet.
 
leasidelife.com

Gearing up for a big fight at Bayview and Broadway - Leaside Life

If you want to win, you need to be prepared, and that takes both a plan and resources. “We are working on a plan and now we need people to state their opposition, and invest ...more
leasidelife.com leasidelife.com

if you want to win, you need to be prepared, and that takes both a plan and resources. “We are working on a plan and now we need people to state their opposition, and invest in our success.”

That was the strong message given to those attending the recent meeting of the Bayview Broadway Group (BBG), the residents’ group formed in opposition to the 25-storey tower proposal at the southeast corner of Bayview and Broadway.

Participants heard that the group is moving to incorporate as Bayview Broadway Good Planning, Inc., has hired a reputed planning lawyer, and is working to hire a top-notch land use planner. And there may be other experts needed. So, this will cost a couple of six figures – a not insignificant amount of money. The fundraising starts now!

First will be the Case Management Conference (CMC) on August 12. This is to establish who will be a “party” with full legal rights to speak and be involved at all stages of the process, and who will sign on as “participants,” who have to submit a written statement 10 days before the CMC. The BBG will file as a party, and they want to demonstrate the widespread opposition to the development as reflected by a large number of participants statements submitted.

The City is expected to file as a party in opposition, but City Planning’s final report did not make it to committee in this term of council. Because of the municipal election, their final report will not be brought to a committee and council meeting until early 2023. The CMC will establish the hearing date, expected sometime in 2023, and the hearing is likely to take a week or more.

The BBG has two critical requests of Leaside residents (and those on the west side of Bayview): first, please consider writing and submitting a participant statement elaborating your concerns; second, and importantly, dig deep with your contribution to the BBG cause.

To follow up and get more details on both of these requests, contact Bayviewbroadwaygoodplanning@gmail.com.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top