Toronto 479R-487 Duplex Avenue | 135.6m | 40s | Zucker | Studio JCI

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
This area is intense...with residential homes.

The official plan was suppose to protect well established residential neighbourhoods, not destroy them for apartment buildings.
 
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.
 
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.
 
However I've always been perplexed by the asymetrical development around Y & E.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
 
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)

1767898343612.png


Streetview:

1767898395035.png


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.
 
mapleto said:
Got a notification for 485 Duplex Ave.

Application NumberApplication TypeAddressSubmission DateAIC Link
25 269673 NNY 08 OZOPA / Rezoning OPA & Rezoning485 DUPLEX AVE12/24/2025http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=cBmF1wIVZvbHz9lS55MXAg==
Click to expand...

TY, while the above link isn't live yet, the application can be found, and I did. Also @A Torontonian Now gets points for his assertion on height here.

@Paclo

Height: 40s

Units: 524

Architect Studio JCI

FSI: 11.64
1768312794857.png


1768313157360.png


1768313206064.png


Site Plan:

1768312907678.png


Ground Floor Plan:

1768312947918.png



Tower Typical Layout:

1768313054551.png



1768313330092.png


1768313361941.png

1768313405444.png


Elevator Ratio: 524 units to 4 elevators, so 1 elevator to 131 units.

Due to 72 Rental Replacement units, @HousingNowTO is flagged. Also, tenure for this site is flagged as 'condo'. Which should have it subject to an inclusionary requirement.
 
Northern Light said:
Due to 72 Rental Replacement units, @HousingNowTO is flagged. Also, tenure for this site is flagged as 'condo'. Which should have it subject to an inclusionary requirement.
Click to expand...

NOPE...

"On January 12, 2026, the Province of Ontario published a proposal for a new regulation that would substantially expand the scope of projects that are exempt from inclusionary zoning (IZ) obligations in Toronto, Mississauga and Kitchener. The regulation, if implemented as proposed, would exempt projects for which a complete zoning, site plan or building permit application is filed with the applicable municipality on or before July 1, 2027 from obligations to provide affordable housing pursuant to an IZ by-law.

The proposal indicates the proposed regulation arises from concerns that implementing IZ at this time, given existing market conditions, could have a negative impact on overall housing supply."

LINK - https://www.goodmans.ca/insights/ar...-zoning-in-toronto--mississauga-and-kitchener
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top