Toronto 148 Soudan Avenue | 185.7m | 56s | Calmco | Arcadis

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
40,915
Reaction score
126,248
Location
Toronto/EY
New to the AIC is this application for a 2 building assembly covering 148-158 Soudan.

The site is a mid-block site along Soudan currently home to a 3.5s rental lowrise and 1 SFH:

1743756004197.png


The App:https://www.toronto.ca/city-government/planning-development/application-details/?id=5604541&pid=280884&title=148 - 158 SOUDAN AVE

From the above:

1743756119165.png


1743756168085.png


Site Plan:

1743756246999.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1743756329786.png



Materials:

1743756417525.png

Stats:

1743756458675.png


Description:

1743756648709.png


1743756686228.png

1743756715640.png

1743756735932.png


Elevator Ratio: 6 elevators to 674 units or 1 elevator per 112.33 units

Commentary:

They must be kidding? LOL

Immediate precedents to the east and west are 19s and 21s The highest ask on Soudan (not approved) is 45s, closer to Mt. Pleasant. 56 is a reach and then some.

Block Context Plan:

1743756928992.png


But hey, what else do we notice above?

1) This proposal sterilizes the lands immediately to the east. Even when dreaming, the planning consultants can't make anything work there, stranding the remaining lowrise on the north side of Soudan. LDA (limiting distance agreement) issues aside
this is bad planning.

2) What's going on with the separation distance from the site to the west? Yeah.....that's right....they want a 10.5M separation? Say what? City Planning is more flexible and accommodating than ever.....but.... in a word, 'No'.

3) A floorplate of over 900m2... sure, why not? I mean if your proposing utter nonsense, why not ignore every guideline from the Tall Buildings Guidelines?

4) Finally.....wait for it.........how do you really peeve Northern Light? You all know.............."Useless Micro Parks' !

What is on this Site Plan?

1743757397947.png


You must be kidding, they want the City to maintain the front yard? I got two words.... no..... not on UT I don't.........oh wait...........how about two others; Refusal Report.

@HousingNowTO should be tagged, since in theory, this site should proposed affordable housing......... but I don't know how much of his time this proposal merits for reasons noted above.

@Paclo
 
OK, I want to add my 2 cents to the part about the height. The other problems are numerous, and a bit worrying, but I believe they can be worked out. Back to the height.

I have a problem with so many people saying that other nearby buildings are such and such a height. Who cares? There are literally thousands of examples where taller towers were built near shorter ones. Why is this even an issue? If this mentality had been maintained throughout history, no tall buildings would ever have been built...
 
The two issues identified by @Northern Light that bother me are separation distance to the west, and the ridiculous front yard park. Just provide that as a yard and pay cash in lieu for a park, like a decent corporate citizen!

I'm not so fussed about the height here since it is at the southern end of the dense node, so shadows will swiftly pass by other tall buildings.

Floor plate being larger might provide for better unit floorplans, although probably not in this case since it is a square box. In fact, if it were shrunk and made rectangular north-south, that could improve the separation distance issue.
 
Koops65 said:
OK, I want to add my 2 cents to the part about the height. The other problems are numerous, and a bit worrying, but I believe they can be worked out. Back the the height.

I have a problem with so many people saying that other nearby buildings are such and such a height. Who cares? There are literally thousands of examples where taller towers were built near shorter ones. Why is this even an issue? If this mentality had been maintained throughout history, no tall buildings would ever have been built...
Click to expand...

I agree, the height is the least of their worries on this application IMO.
 
First of all, is this an f'ing joke...? lol 10m separation to existing tower, 1m tower setback to the east, egregious parkland dedication. The height is the least of my concerns here...

Secondly, CentreCourt owns the house immediately to the east, so I'm very curious how they are interpreting and approaching this application
 
1Ć0 said:
First of all, is this an f'ing joke...? lol 10m separation to existing tower, 1m tower setback to the east, egregious parkland dedication. The height is the least of my concerns here...

Secondly, CentreCourt owns the house immediately to the east, so I'm very curious how they are interpreting and approaching this application
Click to expand...

Oh now that is interesting.

This site and 162 (immediately to the east) were marketed as a group last year, (ad said together or separate).
 
Screenshot 2025-04-04 at 1.31.27 pm.png


From further within the Report:
Screenshot 2025-04-04 at 1.31.57 pm.png


EDIT: what is interesting is that the Planning Report notes the applicant has control over 162 Soudan, while the UDB notes the "proponent controls the property at 160-162 Soudan, ensuring a separation distance of at least 10 metres from any future assembly to the east" (p47). The listing above doesn't read to me that 160 Soudan was included in the sale. I would assume they have some control over 162 (either air rights or outright) and are relying on 160 thereby being an intervening property not suitable for redevelopment at any serious scale. I don't have access to GeoWarehouse to confirm one way or another.
 
Last edited:
@Msleylar

Good catch.

The wording allows that 162 has sold 'air rights' or LDA effectively...........

Which means, in relative terms, it isn't worth much, why not buy it out and shift the proposal east?

That would allow a shift of 9.8M, which would provide 20M separation to the proposal to the west, even at current floor plate size.

If the floor plate were brought down to a more normative size, ~800m2 or less....

And that distance shaved from the E-W dimension that would shave another 3M for separation.
 
Northern Light said:
@Msleylar

Good catch.

The wording allows that 162 has sold 'air rights' or LDA effectively...........

Which means, in relative terms, it isn't worth much, why not buy it out and shift the proposal east?

That would allow a shift of 9.8M, which would provide 20M separation to the proposal to the west, even at current floor plate size.

If the floor plate were brought down to a more normative size, ~800m2 or less....

And that distance shaved from the E-W dimension that would shave another 3M for separation.
Click to expand...
see my edit above, but it's not clear that they own or have air rights over 160 (which intervenes between 158 and 162) which precludes the shift to the east. Even if it's not worth much, you still can't force someone to sell so it could be irrelevant what it's worth.
 
Do we have a real estate lawyer (or paralegal, or real estate policy nerd superfan) who can clear up the following please?

As far as I know, and despite what is written in the Planning Rationale that @Msleylar has clipped above says, Toronto does not allow the sale of air rights; that's a New York thing... or at least it has been.

The Goldberg Group quote from the 2024 Provinicial Policy Statement on page 16 of the Planning Rationale that "prioritizing intensification, including potential air rights development" is part of what the Province wants to see in MTSAs, but that PPS is directed at all Ontario municipalities, not just Toronto.

I have no idea if other Ontario municipalities allow air rights to be sold or not, but it's my understanding that Toronto doesn't. By owning 162 Soudan, I believe what the proponents own are its redevelopment potential, and by surrounding the intervening property, the ability to sterilize that redevelopment potential owing to its small size. So, they don't actually own air rights, just the right to redevelop the 162 Soudan property too, no? (Understanding that it too would be too small to actually redevelop.)

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top