Toronto 38-50 Park Road | 107.9m | 31s | Helberg | Chipperfield + BDPQ

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
40,820
Reaction score
125,705
Location
Toronto/EY
The Lobbyist registry indicates the above buildings at the end of Rosedale Valley are in play.

The site includes a (heritage?) Semi, and a low rise mid-20th C rental building, plus amenity building.

Site as is, per Streetview:

1743015328123.png


Further north:

1743015411030.png


Aerial:

1743015449645.png


Site Size: ~1800m2 / 19500ft2

Comments:

Site has its challenges:

Contains existing rental housing which will have to be replaced.

Directly abuts a park, on the south side of same, which means shadowing will be an issue.

That said, the site is large enough to support a tower.

Immediate precedent is 28s, but across from that is 42s.

An obvious move here would to require on-site parkland as this would directly expand the abutting greenspace.

This site also falls within TRCA regulated space. Were it not already built on, development would not likely be allowed here today, but I expect it will be permitted but likely for some type of further concession.
 
innsertnamehere said:
More than just BDPQ here.
Click to expand...

I know, but I stick to disclosing what's on the public record, unless someone involved says it's cool. (or I figure it out on my own).

In the meantime, this gave me an excuse to bump a thread that had generated no discussion, even though it should.
 
thanks for sharing this! we live in the rental building -- there are about 35 apartments here, many of which are occupied by older people on fixed incomes. We have a magical intergenerational community here.

The shorter 1950s building next door is zoned commercial AND is heritage. It used to be the Ontario Association of Architects headquarters. The pictures from the 50s and 60s are fabulous. It used to be open during Doors Open so we have been inside -- it has really kept its original modernist vibe.

Sucks that the low-rise buildings are always the ones up for destruction -- they're the most efficient and liveable.
 
50 Park Road is actually the (should be) heritage building, as an early modernist pavilion by Parkin and former
AptCommunity said:
thanks for sharing this! we live in the rental building -- there are about 35 apartments here, many of which are occupied by older people on fixed incomes. We have a magical intergenerational community here.

The shorter 1950s building next door is zoned commercial AND is heritage. It used to be the Ontario Association of Architects headquarters. The pictures from the 50s and 60s are fabulous. It used to be open during Doors Open so we have been inside -- it has really kept its original modernist vibe.

Sucks that the low-rise buildings are always the ones up for destruction -- they're the most efficient and liveable.
Click to expand...

I tried to post the same thing earlier today, but there was a protracted "loading" symbol and I guess it did not go through.

Here's a brief writeup with some pics:

https://oaa.on.ca/whats-on/bloaag/b...-Headquarters-Built-1954-Renovation-1992-2009
 
ADRM said:
Would be a (very exciting) first in TO for the design architect here if that indeed comes to pass...
Click to expand...
It's always fun to speculate on which international name will have their first run-ins with our smooth-as-butter bureaucracy and vaunted developer-led value-engineering process.

42
 
Last edited:
This site's Modernist heritage is wonderful, both in terms of the apartment building and the architects' association's former pavilion building. They should be preserved, though the pavilion is more meritorious in my opinion.
 
it is wild. I said 35 earlier but it's actually about 40 apartments. I can't imagine a developer starting a project that would tear down 40 single family homes in this area. But somehow so easy to discuss demolishing 40 apartments...
 
AptCommunity said:
it is wild. I said 35 earlier but it's actually about 40 apartments. I can't imagine a developer starting a project that would tear down 40 single family homes in this area. But somehow so easy to discuss demolishing 40 apartments...
Click to expand...

IF this proposal were to proceed.

That's a big IF.

They would be required to replace all the lost rental housing, and to offer existing tenants the right to return at rents comparable to those when they left.
 
Northern Light said:
IF this proposal were to proceed.

That's a big IF.

They would be required to replace all the lost rental housing, and to offer existing tenants the right to return at rents comparable to those when they left.
Click to expand...
Helberg is a well funded old school german family. They have and continue to build in the GTA, and they do good stuff too, and think in very long timeframes for their returns. It's a lot less of an "if" than many other builders.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Helberg is a well funded old school german family. They have and continue to build in the GTA, and they do good stuff too, and think in very long timeframes for their returns. It's a lot less of an "if" than many other builders.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go into details about why I said big 'IF'....... except that it was not a question of funding.
 
Northern Light said:
The Lobbyist registry indicates the above buildings at the end of Rosedale Valley are in play.

The site includes a (heritage?) Semi, and a low rise mid-20th C rental building, plus amenity building.

Site as is, per Streetview:

View attachment 639459

Further north:

View attachment 639460

Aerial:

View attachment 639461

Site Size: ~1800m2 / 19500ft2

Comments:

Site has its challenges:

Contains existing rental housing which will have to be replaced.

Directly abuts a park, on the south side of same, which means shadowing will be an issue.

That said, the site is large enough to support a tower.

Immediate precedent is 28s, but across from that is 42s.

An obvious move here would to require on-site parkland as this would directly expand the abutting greenspace.

This site also falls within TRCA regulated space. Were it not already built on, development would not likely be allowed here today, but I expect it will be permitted but likely for some type of further concession.
Click to expand...
Sorry to ask what is probably a dumb question here -- but what do 42s and 28s mean here?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top