Toronto 425 Woodbine Avenue | 41.86m | 12s | Artlife | KFA

[Northern Light]

This site is currently comprised of 1, 3.5s lowrise rental apartment building, and 3 vacant lots, once SFH, that have sat empty for the last 25 years. It is situated on the east side of Woodbine Avenue, just south of Kingston Road (not the corner lot).

The proposal is to squeeze a 12 storey (11s + MPH with amenity level) residential build in here.

Site as is:

Aerial View:

credit to @AlbertC for first noticing this site was in play back in 2021, in The Beaches thread, here:

The Beach(es)

The Fox Theatre is selling naming rights to seats to stay in business The century-old cinema in the Beach neighbourhood is having a seat sale By Radheyan Simonpillai April 3, 2020 https://nowtoronto.com/movies/features/fox-theatre-seat-sale-coronavirus/

urbantoronto.ca

The App:

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

From the above:

Site Plan:

Ground Floor Plan:

Description:

****

Comments.

I have no objection to intensification here, but given existing context, and precedents, the 12s ask is aggressive.
Even their own Block Context Plan doesn't suggest there will, in the future, be anything of comparable height nearby.

Aside from lacking precedent for 12s.....the proposal would seem to lock in the existing 3s townhomes at the corner of Woodbine/Kingston Rd which the spot where one might imagine a 12s would most logically go, if one were advocating for that in the general area.

I imagine the height will get pushback.

***

Height to one side, there are other issues here.

The proposed streetscape on Woodbine, render notwithstanding, does not allow for trees, does not create a buffer for the sidewalk along this very busy section of road, and doesn't provide any widening of the ROW to allow for a buffered/raised cycle track.

***

Parking at 115 resident spaces to 137 units is very high by contemporary standards, and suggests a comparatively car-centric focus after arguing that 1.5km to Woodbine Station makes this sufficiently transit friendly to justify the density.
1.5km up not one, but two steep hills...........yeah.......not so transit-friendly. Woodbine bus service is ok'ish..........but very, very slow in rush hours.
Cars getting in/out here given perpetual peak-period traffic jams seems like quite the challenge.

***

Finally, the visual. The massing isn't atrocious if you ignore the steep ask and the separation distance to the corner site as issues. The 4st street wall is reasonable'ish. But the overall aggressive scale, rigid bulk and cold, contemporary finishes do not seem like a way to sell the area on this idea.

Development Review could surprise me here..........but on its face, this one looks like a Refusal.

@Paclo

 

[flonicky]

I agree that the townhouses were an unfortunate choice for that location. Some might argue that they deserve preservation as they are a good example of a specific era of EIFS application. This project would be better if it met the corner and followed the 7-8 storey precedent running up and down Kingston Road.

Black and white is rarely executed well. I wish developers would stop that.

 

[AlbertC]

Artlife being the proponent here means most likely they won't be the ones to get anything built here

Possibly an older design iteration on their website:

Mid & High-Rise Developments — Artlife Developments

www.artlifedev.com

 

[Kazparov]

Hi all. Have just found this site. I live nearby around the corner and am following this topic perhaps looking for some general advice here.

We have known that it was likely something gets built here at some point and that's fine assuming it's within scale and scope of what's been built in the area.

Couple things that stand out which have not been discussed is the contamination of the land under question. There were gas stations here for decades. In the 1980's the tanks leaked and their was remediation done to contain the contamination.
The developer provided a phase 2 study which confirms all sorts of nasty stuff in the ground, but the scope of the study was only to conclude if this posed a danger to the current tenants living in the low rise apartment building currently on site.

Our concern from the neighborhood on this is that digging all this up will make the contamination airborne which I really don't want to be breathing.

The other issue that the developer main not even know about is that there is an underground river here, so they will need a big effort to mitigate the water inflows to even build the foundation.

Any advice or insight into how to push back on this is appreciated. I'm not against something being built, but surely this is too large and we all have big concerns about the potential health risks during building

 

[Northern Light]

Couple things that stand out which have not been discussed is the contamination of the land under question. There were gas stations here for decades. In the 1980's the tanks leaked and their was remediation done to contain the contamination.
The developer provided a phase 2 study which confirms all sorts of nasty stuff in the ground, but the scope of the study was only to conclude if this posed a danger to the current tenants living in the low rise apartment building currently on site.

Our concern from the neighborhood on this is that digging all this up will make the contamination airborne which I really don't want to be breathing.

While Artlife, based on past experience, is unlikely to actually build here, should they obtain zoning (permission) to do so.........soil tests for contamination are a standard part of the development process, and remediation plans are required when necessary.

The Planning submission, which I link below, already contains an Environmental Assessment of the site:

The document you want is the Phase 2 Assessment, which can be found on P.2

Note the document is over 400 pages long........the testing was thorough.

The other issue that the developer main not even know about is that there is an underground river here, so they will need a big effort to mitigate the water inflows to even build the foundation.

Rumours you've heard on this are not correct. This is an area about which I am very knowledgeable.

Here are the buried rivers in this area:

You can explore these further, here: https://www.lostrivers.ca/disappearing.html

It is likely the water table is extremely high in this location. That will be revealed in any core samples taken at the site, though City mapping programs already document this quite thoroughly.

Indeed, that issue is addressed as well in both the Environmental Assessment Phase 2 and in the Hydrology Report, which is 3 documents on p. 3 at the link below.

Any advice or insight into how to push back on this is appreciated. I'm not against something being built, but surely this is too large and we all have big concerns about the potential health risks during building

Read my post in this thread (number 1); there you will see reasons this may get push back from the City and probably should.

The reasons I give are reasons they would consider to be problems.

Otherwise, raise any legitimate concern with the City Planner, and/or your City Councillor.

This is the Planner's Info:

You'll find that many key documents of interest already posted for you here, but if you want to explore everything the developer has had to submit to date, go here:

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

 

[Kazparov]

I think as well

While Artlife, based on past experience, is unlikely to actually build here, should they obtain zoning (permission) to do so.........soil tests for contamination are a standard part of the development process, and remediation plans are required when necessary.

The Planning submission, which I link below, already contains an Environmental Assessment of the site:

The document you want is the Phase 2 Assessment, which can be found on P.2

Note the document is over 400 pages long........the testing was thorough.



Rumours you've heard on this are not correct. This is an area about which I am very knowledgeable.

Here are the buried rivers in this area:

View attachment 649807

You can explore these further, here: https://www.lostrivers.ca/disappearing.html

It is likely the water table is extremely high in this location. That will be revealed in any core samples taken at the site, though City mapping programs already document this quite thoroughly.

Indeed, that issue addressed as well both the Environmental Assessment Phase 2 and in the Hydrology Report, which is 3 documents on p. 3 at the link below.



Read my post in this thread (number 1); there you will see reasons this may get push back from the City and probably should.

The reasons I give are reasons they would consider to be problems.

Otherwise, raise any legitimate concern with the City Planner, and/or your City Councillor.

This is the Planner's Info:

View attachment 649798
You'll find that many key documents of interest already posted for you here, but if you want to explore everything the developer has had to submit to date, go here:

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

Thank you very much for the response. I will go through what you have written in more detail when I have the chance.

Perhaps it is just a higher water table. I do know that the condo building on the corner of Haslett encountered significant water issues when they dug the basement. The townhouses on the corner originally we're going to do garages underground, but those plans were scrapped during construction and the garages were put on the ground level around the back on the laneway. I also know a resident who lives right behind the proposed site, the house has been in their family for 80 90 years, she was the one who said when they had dug out the basement there was water flowing, however on hindsight that could have just been water moving because of the high water table and not a river. Nevertheless water is an issue here.

Will reach out to the city planner. Unfortunately the city councilor is Brad Bradford who is very Pro development so I do not expect much assistance from him.

I have looked at the phase 2 and while most of the technical stuff is beyond me, the conclusion reached at the end clearly states that the purpose of this was to determine if there was a risk to the residents of the existing building. I'm not sure if that's enough to conclude anything about risks to the surrounding residents should this development go through.

At any rate I appreciate your reply.

 

[Kazparov]

Sorry one more question: why did you say art life is unlikely to proceed with development? Is that their typical business plan? Purchase a lot, get approval for a project and then sell it?

 

[Northern Light]

Sorry one more question: why did you say art life is unlikely to proceed with development? Is that their typical business plan? Purchase a lot, get approval for a project and then sell it?

I wouldn't want to assert a definitive conclusion.......
But I offer this; if one searches UT's projects threads for those with Artlife in the title you get this result:

Last I checked, none of these have broken ground.

 

[Paclo]

Still no complete application here (notice of incomplete application was issued April 2). Proponent has resubmitted materials to rectify.

 

[Northern Light]

Resubmission here in February '26.

Notice of complete Application Issued.

Though it doesn't show on the City's website, the public meeting here is scheduled for April 1st. Ominous date for this one, LOL

Current Render:

Updated Stats..... is the tenure here Condo....or undecided? LOL

@Paclo

 

[innsertnamehere]

Looks much better!

 

[PL1]

Units seem small, though