Recent content by Msleylar

Anything is possible, its a matter of time and money!

The rail deck park decision is relevant for its discussion of air rights, though IANAL...

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.

From further within the Report: 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...

I agree, the height is the least of their worries on this application IMO.

Now that it has a Council-adopted Avenues designation, along with the Major Streets work that has been enacted by the OLT (in part) we will certainly see 6-9 storey midrise coming to Bayview.

Not far off what I drew up here years ago, nice to see.

I expect we will start seeing it sooner rather than later tbh, the north side of Viewmount could work perfectly for taller element with on-site parkland to expand the frontage of Viewmount Park. Particularly if someone goes for 225-231 and can expand the connection on the west side, or assemble...

I agree, I don't have an issue with that or the heights really.

I'd actually argue it's worse than a typical subdivision, greenfield/sprawl issues aside. Generally in new greenfield with this level of units, you will have new parks, new school blocks, SWM ponds, rec trails ect integrated as part of the overall subdivision. This proposal is just lazy, and...

That much density and height and no real public space other than a nominal POPS at the corner? Come on.

I always saw this project as an expropriation play, secure an approval/concept to demonstrate value and hope the City expropriates the air rights for the park.

I am highly skeptical that the third party appeal restrictions will be included in the approved legislation unfortunately :(

Definitely, to me this is a 'force them to the table application'. But when I look at the two potential tower sites, the southern site makes more sense as it can accommodate a tower without externalizing separation requirements to the site to the north, while this site can't say the same about...

The problem with that logic though (as I see it) is that rationale is nearly-equally applicable to the southern properties (but for the heritage aspect). A 675 floorplate w/ 12.5m separation to the north is a viable site. I just can't see property owner's on Yonge giving up their future...