479-499 Duplex @ Montgomery REFUSED (Conservatory Group, 25s)

[urbandreamer]

^^Hey you sound like Mr developer himself!

That's poor reasoning to have them demolished. Old homes can easily be fixed up and restored. Once they're gone, it's too late.

 

[fundit]

I wouldn't mind seeing more diversity in that area - something that apartments are sure to provide. Note that the 38-year-old i-banker who is the cochair of the neighborhood council is probably just concerned about his property value.

I would venture the opinion that increased population density in the area could only help local businesses and keep the area vibrant. As downtown grows north, this area is becoming older (demographically) and might not support itself as baby boomers move, if they don't have reasonable living choices when they move out of their 2500 sf homes.

 

[alklay]

There are appropriate places for density and inappropriate places for density. "More density in the area" and "keeping the area vibrant" are generalizations that can be achieved in a host of ways, none of which have to include destroying the homes on this particular street and replacing them with an apartment building.

 

[Mike in TO]

In a prehearing decision the OMB has set the date for a hearing on appeals by Top of the Tree Development Inc. against failure of the city to enact O.P. and zb/l amendments to permit an apartment development at 34-70 Montgomery Ave, northwest of Yonge & Eglinton.

Top of the Tree (Conservatory Group_ proposes changing the O.P. designation from neighbourhoods to apartment neighbourhoods for the development of a 25s apartment building containing 328 units. The board set the date for the five-week hearing to begin February 9, 2009.

 

[cdr108]

According to the renderings in the developers proposal, the 25 storey tower does not appear to overwhelm the area. It has substantial setbacks, although it could be described as more of 'blockisk' than point tower.

Being so close to the Yonge/Eglinton subway line (2 blocks N x 1 block W), I would have thought this area would have been under the city's official plan for intensification.

 

[alklay]

This area is intense...with residential homes.

The official plan was suppose to protect well established residential neighbourhoods, not destroy them for apartment buildings.

 

[origin]

Development proposal sign (which was filled with graffiti) on the property where the houses were supposed to have been torn town was finally taken down this past week.

 

[Redroom Studios]

I have mixed feelings about this. It is always disappointing to see older neighbourhoods being eaten up by progress. However I've always been perplexed by the asymetrical development around Y & E. The east side of Yonge has a wonderful mix of highrise and heritage type single family and semi detatched homes. I would love to see this continued west of Yonge... to me this is what defines the best of Toronto's building style: the mixing of high and low density creates very cozy and livable neighbourhoods.

re: this specific proposal, while the stepped back massing might be a good idea, I found the elevations to be quite uninspired, verging on ugly.

 

[Uncle Teddy]

However I've always been perplexed by the asymetrical development around Y & E.

The east side was developed in the days when block busting wasn't an issue. Today it is an issue.

Having said that I see no reason why this block shouldn't go high rise.

 

[Redroom Studios]

yes, I understand that. Perhaps 'perplexed' was a bad choice of words. I guess I am just wishing that it had been developed in a more symmetrical way. I think for all the nasty sound of "block busting', what has been developed on the east side of Yonge works very well (imo). I doubt a modern take on block busting would be so kind in what it creates. Anyways, this is probably my favourite part of the city and atleast from a visual point of view it seems obvious that development will have to take place sooner or later west of Yonge...

 

[Northern Light]

Ok, for now, I'm going to resurrect this thread, but I will leave to @Paclo to determine if that should be the case, or a new thread started.

There is fresh lobbying for some of the properties included above, the lobbying lists 479R, 485 and 487 Duplex, it does not mention the sites further north.

The site: (aerial)

Streetview:

Site size: ~34000ft2 and change

The building are not heritage protected.

The Lobbyist is MA Development Services out of Guelph.

Comments: Not sure what they have in mind, but if it involves tearing down the existing rentals, that's a lot of replacement units for which cost must be recovered.

There's ample room here for a tower, but the areas, as can bee seen in this thread successfully fought off 25s, about 17 years ago.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Things are very different for this site now than back in the day. It is just inside the boundaries of the PMTSA. I would be shocked if the ask was as little as 25s now.