Toronto 1779-1787 Bayview | 120.42m | 35s | Condor Properties Ltd | Arcadis

This one is under appeal to the OLT (filed Apr '23); but the SPA was filed Oct '23

* The docs indicate that a full resubmission of the OPA/ZBA is being done with this

The descriptions of the changes are a bit clunky, so I'll posts the summary below and the render:

1698778806198.png


1698778932924.png


The obvious change here is the articulation of the podium. Gone is the hideous 'Social' green spandrel; though what's replaced it isn't particularly appealing either. There have been some minor modifications to the setbacks as well.

The rendering above does not reflect this, but they've made room for 2 additional streets on Bayview, roughly where the flower are above, but out in front of that. No new trees on the Eglinton side.

The Unit total has been bumped, which with 4 elevators now puts it on the wrong side of the 1 per 100 unit standard.
 
Last edited:
I dunno. This looks like the definition of a negative shadow impact. Covers most of the park/sports field & a major high school.
 
Midtown Hank said:
I dunno. This looks like the definition of a negative shadow impact. Covers most of the park/sports field & a major high school.
Click to expand...

In general, the shadows of interest are those in March and September (shadows are also measured in December, but in most parks there is very little use in December; and in June, where it is also a concern, though long days, high sun angles and heat mitigate the concern).

The shadows here in March:

1698783553926.png



1698783580748.png


Lets look at October next:

1698783661714.png


1698783687759.png


So the material impacts at these two times of year are really from 5-7pm. This will clearly affect use of baseball diamond near the corner during some hours of play in September (baseball isn't played in March); but otherwise not as bad as you might think.

June is slightly more impacted, primarily because its a busier time of year in the park, but the sun is also at different angle:

1698783843079.png


1698783869168.png


So here you get about one additional hour of material impact, running further into the park.

I wouldn't say the shadow issues are horrendous, but they are material; a somewhat larger issue in regards to shadows here is precedent.

Proposals are or will be coming forward for other sites to the west and south and if they argue they can have 35s too, it could certainly be very damaging to the park experience.

I think the compelling argument here (morally not legally) is that this remains a clunkily designed eyesore.

It really doesn't give back, in exchange for what it takes away.

Lowering the height of the podium here would substantially reduce the shadow impact in the corner. By contrast, shaving 10s would do very little, except in June.

I remain of the opinion that the applicant should be buying houses adjacent to the park here to give it a more functional shape and layout, which would also allow facilities to be shifted around some, if beneficial.

The weird shape here, by the way is a result of a buried stream:

1698784271406.png

From: http://www.lostrivers.ca/disappearing.html

You'll note this is the red line passing along Howard Talbot Park. This stream still has a shadow of itself above ground, where Mx can be found clearcutting its remaining ravine sections, near Beth Nealson drive.
 
Last edited:
New rendering added to the db. The height changed from 118.27m to 119.92m. Total units changed from 373 units to 428 units. The total parking spot changed from 138 parking to 137 parking. Finally, the total bike parking was reduced from 488 bike parking to 476 bike parking.

Rendering taken from the arch plan via rezoning submission.
 
The database has been updated to reflect the settlement offer. Changes are as follows:
  • Height increased from 119.92 to 120.42m
  • Total units increased from 428 to 436 (+4 condos, +4 rentals)
  • Commercial-retail space eliminated
  • Total bicycle parking increased from 476 to 491

Storey count remains 35, total vehicular parking remains 137.
Additional updated renderings:
backgroundfile-243844-0.jpg

backgroundfile-244054-360.jpg

backgroundfile-244054-359.jpg

backgroundfile-244054-357.jpg

backgroundfile-244054-358.jpg


Another CMC scheduled for next week; Merit hearing tentatively scheduled for Nov 25, 2024
 
This to me this is just awful. I don't get it. Maybe someone can explain any redeeming qualities? I understand the desire for greater density with the light rail station, but this stands out like a lighthouse on an island. Supported by the local resident's association? What am I missing?
 
Midtown Hank said:
This to me this is just awful.
Click to expand...

Correct.

Midtown Hank said:
I don't get it.
Click to expand...

That's a good sign, as there is nothing to get.

Midtown Hank said:
Maybe someone can explain any redeeming qualities?
Click to expand...

There aren't any, really.

Midtown Hank said:
I understand the desire for greater density with the light rail station, but this stands out like a lighthouse on an island.
Click to expand...

What do you have against lighthouses to make such a comparison?

***

In all seriousness, every one of the four corners here will redevelop.

So will all of Bayview within 3 blocks north or south of Eglinton.

The problem with this is not that its 'isolated' but rather that it simply doesn't fit the site, its ugly, and its poorly integrated both with the station and with the adjacent park.

Midtown Hank said:
Supported by the local resident's association? What am I missing?
Click to expand...

Supported is such a strong word.
 
Last edited:
The settlement of the appeals of the OPA/ZBA have been ratified by the OLT.

SPA remains under appeal but moving towards settlement:
The Appellant and the City stated that settlement discussions regarding the Site Plan Approval appeal proceeding are ongoing. They stated that it is intended that the Site Plan will reflect aspects of the Zoning By-law Amendment, which will need to be finalized before a settlement of the Site Plan Approval appeal can be reached. They stated that they intend to circulate the draft Site Plan to the Parties to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment appeal proceedings. The Appellant and the City requested that a further CMC be scheduled for the Site Plan Approval appeal proceeding for late June 2024, at which they will be in a position to provide an update so that a pathway forward for that proceeding can be mapped out.
Click to expand...
 
Wow. I didn't see the newest two iterations of this. While I'm glad to see this area intensify (mostly because the Crosstown runs under Eglinton here), I'm just dumbfounded by the design here. Frankly, I don't see the redeeming value of these homes, since we have a lot of examples of this vernacular architecture from the inter-war years in the area, even if they're vastly superior to what's being proposed in terms of architectural design language. If they tried to perhaps relate to these homes in the podium's design, I'd be more on board with saving the facades here.

And I say this as someone who generally likes to see older buildings reinterpreted/conserved in redevelopments.
My biggest issue with this project relates to Metrolinx's decision to make standalone station buildings/entrances that have to be redeveloped AROUND them. It creates awkward public realms and engineering challenges to building high density development above these buildings. I'm not going to comment much more on the exterior of this building, as there could be a revision to the design in the future.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top