News   Dec 23, 2025
Happy Holidays From the UrbanToronto Team!
 668     3 
News   Dec 23, 2025
UrbanToronto Year-End Poll: Vote on the Best Buildings of 2025, presented by Diverso Energy
 1.6K     1 
News   Dec 23, 2025
City Council December, 2025 Zoning Settlements: Large-Scale Housing, City-Wide Policy
 2.4K     1 

23-29a Gloucester (?, ?s, ?)

N

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
41,103
Reaction score
127,125
Location
Toronto/EY
Site is a consolidation, just east of James Canning Gardens (east of Yonge), clearly being marketed as a potential development site, with a price of 49.23M

www.realtor.ca

Check out this listing

23-29A* GLOUCESTER ST, Toronto, Ontario M4Y1L8
www.realtor.ca www.realtor.ca

Looks like yellow-belt to me; but is directly opposite a hirise to the north, but SFH due east.

Frankly, if you added 21 to the package, I think it would be a great steal for the City for parkland, as you could add it to James Canning and begin to get a critical mass-sized park.

Image from Streetview:

1654195905629.png


Aerial shot:

1654195956938.png


Site reads only ~7000ft2, bit small for any hirise ambition.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Why should this *not* be a highrise site?

Do folks think it’s a good idea to preserve this single-family, next to the subway in the middle of the core, flanked by towers?
Click to expand...
It could and should certainly be considered a high-rise site if the City was a blank Sim City canvas. Its price tag, meagre size and underlying planning as Neighbourhoods make it not a high-rise site mechanically, not theoretically.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Why should this *not* be a highrise site?

Do folks think it’s a good idea to preserve this single-family, next to the subway in the middle of the core, flanked by towers?
Click to expand...

Last part first, the answer is 'No'.

Now the first part........zoning aside, the site isn't very deep, (only 25M), about the same as its width.

Even if you got past the zoning, the site as currently assembled is a bit small for a condo/apartment profile, and that's if you could build it to the lot lines on every side, and didn't face shadowing restrictions (which you would due to the park immediately to the west and Barbara Hall Park not that far east.)

What you're left with isn't terribly viable from an economic perspective.

IF you could assemble the balance of the properties south to Dundonald you might have something.

However, zoning and shadowing limitations aside, you have the problem the City has already added a lot on Dundonald to James Canning Gardens, you also have public laneway ownership issues if the City elected not to cooperate.

Put simply, while not impossible, it's certainly impractical as currently offered.

Meanwhile, adding to James Canning Gardens (with the intervening lot a necessary purchase) makes for bringing that park up to a more critical mass size, and relatively speaking, the City can get the land (for less than current asking)
at a price that's affordable by downtown standards.

A preferable alternative to tiny little slivers of parks added here, there and everywhere that lack functional size and drive inordinate maintenance costs.
 
Last edited:
AlexBozikovic said:
Why should this *not* be a highrise site?

Do folks think it’s a good idea to preserve this single-family, next to the subway in the middle of the core, flanked by towers?
Click to expand...
No reason at all theoretically, but it's just not big enough for anyone to tackle, unfortunately. Toronto building economics aren't at the point where we can support 1-2 unit per floor towers (yet). I'd be doing pencil towers all over the city if I could, but you'd lose money every time so it's just not viable.

1654206623212.png


1654206695631.png


Etc. etc. etc.
 
ProjectEnd said:
No reason at all theoretically, but it's just not big enough for anyone to tackle, unfortunately. Toronto building economics aren't at the point where we can support 1-2 unit per floor towers (yet). I'd be doing pencil towers all over the city if I could, but you'd lose money every time so it's just not viable.

View attachment 404374

View attachment 404375

Etc. etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Where are those?
 
My father's family actually used to own the yellow building on the right hand side of that first photo up until ~2015. It's now a similar pencil thin residential tower with likely 1 unit per floor or so, that almost parallels the Zebrano tower in massing. Although you'll find examples like that throughout Hong Kong, it does seem like Kowloon City has a notable concentration of them.


kowloo.JPG



But there is a more significant project in the neighbourhood which was just announced last week that is more of the large scale full block redevelopment:

www.thestandard.com.hk

URA sets aside over HK$15 billion for Kowloon City redevelopment

The Urban Renewal Authority will set aside more than HK$15 billion for the urban renewal project in Kowloon City over the next 10 years, managing director Wai Chi-sing wrote in his blog.The authority on Friday commenced the statutory planning procedures for the Nga Tsin Wai Road / Carpenter Road...
www.thestandard.com.hk www.thestandard.com.hk

In terms of Toronto, the closest projects to this tower concept so far would be 86 John Street and Bungalow on Mercer, although neither have been able to get shovels in the ground since they've been proposed.

Although it is a positive to at least see 65 George Street showing some renewed signs of life recently.
 
I get the argument about density and economics, but I really don't think we should be holding up Hong Kong as a model of what our city should be like (individual pieces like their public transit and TOD notwithstanding).
 
Undead said:
I get the argument about density and economics, but I really don't think we should be holding up Hong Kong as a model of what out city should be like (individual pieces like their public transit and TOD notwithstanding).
Click to expand...

I could do w/o the place being quite that crowded myself.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top