Toronto 50 Stephanie Street | 42.51m | 11s | Gateway Properties | BDP Quadrangle

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
40,912
Reaction score
126,230
Location
Toronto/EY
This is a new to the AIC Application for the sodded area to the north of the existing rental building at the above address, which is atop said building's underground parking garage and adjacent to Grange Park.

Site as is, per Streetview:

1765380192531.png


The App:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

From the above:

1765380258040.png


1765380291157.png


Site Plan:

1765380341247.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1765380392480.png


Typical Floor Layout:

1765380453026.png

1765380498021.png

1765380515456.png


1765380595789.png


1765380620964.png

1765380701846.png


Elevator Ratio: 163 units to 2 elevators is 1 elevator per 81 units

Comments:

Great idea, nice to see a modest expansion of Grange Park; elevator ratio good. But.....units are too small, still an investor box mind set. Need to get sizes up about 20%, more family size units as well.

Would have some late-day shadow impacts on Grange Park, but w/o deep diving on that, I think it should be manageable

@Paclo .
 
@Northern Light - Do you have thoughts on the proposed removal of 21/48 trees on site?

At first glance it looks like they're proposing to remove:
  • All trees on top of the existing parking garage (904-911)
  • The majority of trees along Beverly (U-CC)
  • Some trees abutting the north property line in the existing dog park (901-903)
 
Last edited:
noahthewale said:
@Northern Light - Do you have thoughts on the proposed removal of 21/48 trees on site?

At first glance it looks like they're proposing to remove:
  • All trees on top of the existing parking garage (904-911)
  • The majority of trees along Beverly (U-CC)
  • Some trees abutting the north property line in the existing dog park (901-903)
Click to expand...

Your assessment is correct.

Here is the plan:

1765392510182.png


Circles with clean lines are trees to be retained; circles with ribbed edges are to be removed.

So the the plan does not show removing trees next to the dog park, however, some will be, not sure why those were omitted from the plan; or along the promenade, but throughout the site interior and along Beverly.

***

The mandatory removal trees are pretty much as-of-right to remove as they are in the way of the proposal, and would be removed in the next few years anyway during re-membraning of the parking garage roof.

A handful are quite large, most are non-native and invasive.

Of the trees being removed 7 are Norway Maple, and 8 are Siberian Elm. I wouldn't consider them priority removals from an ecological perspective here as there is no high quality natural area nearby, however, I won't shed a tear for their loss either.

The other trees to be removed are mostly near-native 2 Honey Locust, 2 Kentucky Coffee Tree , there's also a Sycamore.

****

On the broader '48' the additional 27 trees are meant to be kept, but are within 6M of the working site, and therefore may be subject to root damage, pruning, or vibration related damage during construction.

Most should be be fine, if properly protected with Tree Protection Zones, but unintentional losses of up to 20% might be expected.

****

Curiously here, I think my biggest issue w/this plan is why they are preserving these Austrian Pines on the Beverly frontage:

1765393462439.png


They've all been topped like some sort of weird Bonsai trees. Looks goofy, no ecological value, not much aesthetic value as far as I'm concerned, entirely non-native, though not invasive.

Remove. This is a good chance to plant higher quality natives.
 
Last edited:
Interesting. Is it too much to ask for an AGO related space on the ground-level (or two) of this proposal?!

And is there a long-term plan for future AGO/OCADU expansions?!
 
Last edited:
Certainly support the intensification here and it has very appropriate height relative to its surroundings, but something with this design is just...odd.
 
Honestly I'd rather demolish the existing tower and build the Ontario Science Centre here. It'll benefit from being downtown and right next to the AGO - just like how the Science Museum in London is a major tourist attraction because it's right next to the Natural History Museum and the V&A Museum in Central London.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top