Toronto 323 Symington | 130.67m | 39s | European Bakery Supply Inc | TACT Architecture

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
31,254
Reaction score
87,459
Location
Toronto/EY
New to the AIC is an application for this property at 321-355 Symington and 350 Campbell.

This is Symington just north of Dupont, excluding the BMO on the corner, all the way up the the rail corridor, with that parcel running east to and addressed as Campbell.

The proposed site here is adjacent to the Marlin Spring development 316 Junction at 26s.

The thread for which can be found here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...spring-giannone-petricone.31745/#post-1614840


On the first page of the above thread, @AlbertC made the following observation:

I live about 5 minutes NE of here. I'm all for yellowbelt intensification here on Campbell, although it's a shame that Marlin Spring are the ones doing the assembly.

The retail plaza lining Symington with the Beer Store is also prime for redevelopment. The plot of land to the east features a large amount of employment space. It's not really an aesthetically appealing group of buildings, but it serves reasonable contributions to the area.

While @Kenojuak chimed in to note:

The Beer Store / Caldense plaza was up for sale off market a year or two ago. It excludes the BMO on the corner but includes the parking lot north of 336 Campbell, and part of the frontage on Dupont IIRC.

Which brings us the the picture of the site, as is:

1672918749307.png


With that, The App: Read this one closely, and no, not for the typo:

1672918885593.png



In case you missed it:

- Designated Core Employment Area; no No OPA filed, No Conversion Request Filed. (* The Arch. Plans have a render which references being for an OPA)

Uhhhh, ok then.

I'm thinking @ProjectEnd or @innsertnamehere might have some thoughts on that.

Now, From the Docs:

1672919076816.png


1672919255252.png


1672919297570.png


1672919378807.png


1672919441164.png


1672919476981.png


1672919522510.png


1672919553517.png


1672919600782.png



Oh, I get it now, LOL, the client couldn't afford the OPA after blowing the budget on the renders.

Site Plan:

1672919713233.png


Not clear in the above, but the northern edge of this site, is an above-grade parking garage, doubling as the crash-wall against the rail corridor.

Ground Floor Plan:

1672919852461.png



FSI: 9.92, per the cover letter


Document Notes:

The Cover Letter refers to their being, as one would expect, a Planning Rationale Report; the upload in the AIC does not feature one. Err, well, it shows one, but the link is in fact to a 1-page letter from former Councillor Palacio and not the report from Bousfields that was done in service of the application.

There is one 'Linked Document'......in the list, but as it turns out, that's the elevation drawings, in case you were looking for those. LOL

****

Application comments.

Given what's gone on around this application (adjacent sites), I don't see any difficulty getting an OPA/Employment Conversion here; though the applicant is going to need to file those.

The height is quite the ask. It follows the PE rule of check what your neighbour got and tack on some height, but a 50% premium in storey count to the adjacent site is.........ambitious.

In respect of shadowing, it does have the virtue of the rail corridor to the north to eat the worst of it. But it will cast nearly full shadow over the Park on the west side of Symington for about 2 hours each morning in spring and fall.

Worth saying, however, looking at the shadow, one can ascertain, a meaningful height reduction would not reduce that impact:

1672920553537.png


On the landscape plans........

1672920950874.png


This level of detail, LOL, will not pass TGS (the Toronto Green Standard)

Otherwise, its mostly fine, soil volume is a bit light on the 'small' tree at only 13m3, err, that might support a shrub, or dwarf tree, maybe.
 
I've been anticipating a proposal here since it's a very obvious site for intensification, especially given all the development in the immediate area.

Great to see another ratty old plaza go!
 
I'm surprised by what people aren't commenting on here.

1) The podium reads to me as a ode to 50's/60s modernism

2) The brick climbs the towers

3) I don't entirely know what to make of the towers in this context as they are certainly a departure stylistically from the podium, I can't say it reminds of Uno Pri exactly, but there's something there that vaguely makes me think of his stuff just the same.
 
Love the proposal! Our neighbourhood has been surrounded by development so nice to see it happen within Carleton Village
 
3) I don't entirely know what to make of the towers in this context as they are certainly a departure stylistically from the podium, I can't say it reminds of Uno Pri exactly, but there's something there that vaguely makes me think of his stuff just the same.

I can see it – I do get kind of an 11 Walmer vibe, between the brick and the curved balconies.

Overall I don't mind it, though the way the towers resolve at the crown (especially the southern one) feels incredibly awkward to me.
 
You can usually count on Jack to post something I have posted about 3-5 hours after me. LOL

He's remarkably consistent; and pretty much never first.

Is that really so bad? He's got to make a living. I'm sure there are plenty of other lurkers who make good use of your sleuthing.

I sure do miss the gifs, though...
 
Is that really so bad? He's got to make a living. I'm sure there are plenty of other lurkers who make good use of your sleuthing.

I sure do miss the gifs, though...
Not sure he's doing anything different than when he was writing for here. As in, "One of the regulars-in-the-know has dug up something interesting, let's see where this goes."
 
This is actually mostly mixed use areas - only the northeast corner of the site along Campbell is employment. And, as you can see, that will be for the parking garage only.. So no employment conversion or OPA needed.

View attachment 448598
I was going to say, when I looked at this piece a year ago it wasn't 'Core Employment' then, and it sure isn't now...An odd miss by the City. We were always told that it was a possibility the Bakery would go through with the rezoning themselves - hence TACT handling the drawings. Looks fine, but they won't be building this so it's anybody's guess what will eventually be constructed here.
 
I was going to say, when I looked at this piece a year ago it wasn't 'Core Employment' then, and it sure isn't now...An odd miss by the City. We were always told that it was a possibility the Bakery would go through with the rezoning themselves - hence TACT handling the drawings. Looks fine, but they won't be building this so it's anybody's guess what will eventually be constructed here.
the part of the property on Campbell is actually employment. I suspect the city won't be happy about it being used only for a residential parking structure however, and will likely argue that it's a "residential-associated" use and won't be permitted.
 
Yep. That said, the Marlin Spring project directly south is firmly 'Neighbourhoods / R-Zone' which is just as sacrosanct, if not more so, than Industrial / Employment in the City's eyes. And, as you said above, technically the use of the land isn't for residences so who knows how they'll react. I'd say 'pick your battles', but the City has never been very good at that...
 
Yep. That said, the Marlin Spring project directly south is firmly 'Neighbourhoods / R-Zone' which is just as sacrosanct, if not more so, than Industrial / Employment in the City's eyes. And, as you said above, technically the use of the land isn't for residences so who knows how they'll react. I'd say 'pick your battles', but the City has never been very good at that...
Absolutely - but the city puts even more emphasis on the protection of employment lands than it does on the protection of neighbourhoods, ironically.. It absolutely shouldn't be a battle, but absolutely will end up being one anyway. At least the applicant doesn't need to get this conversion through an MCR any more, though I do find it curious that they haven't applied for it through the latest MCR as they likely would have received support given that it's a little orphaned parcel which doesn't make much sense to leave as Core Employment Areas..
 

Back
Top