Toronto 1540 Bloor West | 91.9m | 27s | Trinity Group | IBI Group

[Jimto]

LOL, are you serious? It's almost literally on top of a mobility hub. This is one of the best-served areas in the city for transit and you want more parking?

Agreed.

The developer has also committed to a right in, right out traffic control arrangement to the building parking to reduce the impact on local traffic. He has tried to reduce the required (City regulations) number of parking spots but the City didn't like that.

Finally, the City doesn't recognize the concept of a mobility or transit hub (seriously!).

 

[Jimto]

Just emailed them to express my concerns about the development. I can't stand the proposed development. It's ugly, has too little parking, and creates an unsafe walking environment.

You do understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder don't you? But do you really consider that proposal uglier than Crossways or the building immediately south of it?

As for "unsafe walking environment", the proposal widens the sidewalk on both the Bloor and Dundas sides of the building and will dramatically increase the amount of space for pedestrians.

 

[Mrgeosim]

LOL, are you serious? It's almost literally on top of a mobility hub. This is one of the best-served areas in the city for transit and you want more parking?

80 parking spaces for 327 units is very little and will likely result in spillover onto surrounding streets. The average home in the old city of Toronto has 0.9 cars so I don't see what they are proposing matching the realities of the city. The location may warrant a reduction in parking spaces but a ratio of 0.24 per unit is just unreasonable. I live in this area and don't want to see the narrow and already crowded streets overwhelmed.

You do understand that beauty is in the eye of the beholder don't you? But do you really consider that proposal uglier than Crossways or the building immediately south of it?

As for "unsafe walking environment", the proposal widens the sidewalk on both the Bloor and Dundas sides of the building and will dramatically increase the amount of space for pedestrians.

The crossways isn't the most attractive but my suggestion is that new developments react to what other developers are proposing for the neighbourhood and not what currently stands there. Across the street Choice REIT is planning a new community that will define what Bloor and Dundas West is. I think it makes more sense for the developer of this building to take their cues from what's planned there instead of the adjacent1970s era brutalist building.

 

[Jimto]

The crossways isn't the most attractive but my suggestion is that new developments react to what other developers are proposing for the neighbourhood and not what currently stands there. Across the street Choice REIT is planning a new community that will define what Bloor and Dundas West is. I think it makes more sense for the developer of this building to take their cues from what's planned there instead of the adjacent1970s era brutalist building.

Crossways is there and will be there for a long time. There are no other architectural references references in the area (other than the tower that is being built north of Crossways). Your suggestion that the developers wait to see what Choice are proposing is just going to subject the community to many more years of indecision and derelict property on their doorsteps.

Furthermore, the LNX condo building on Dundas is as high as the current proposal for this site and is modern day brutalist. This proposal is much more interesting, IMO.

Choice, being a part of the Loblaws empire, has time on their side and can sit on that property indefinitely. They have already put considerable obstacles in their own way (school property, integration with UPX, Go, etc.)

80 parking spaces for 327 units is very little and will likely result in spillover onto surrounding streets. The average home in the old city of Toronto has 0.9 cars so I don't see what they are proposing matching the realities of the city. The location may warrant a reduction in parking spaces but a ratio of 0.24 per unit is just unreasonable. I live in this area and don't want to see the narrow and already crowded streets overwhelmed.

I think you're being a bit facetious here. If you attended any of the developer open houses, they addressed the parking issue in detail. They also used research to back up their position rather than opinion as you seem to be. I have never heard anybody in the neighbourhood complain about not being able to find street parking. Maybe sometimes, we have to walk a little further or can't park right outside but there is always space.

... adjacent1970s era brutalist building ...

Are you deliberately using the term "brutalist"! If you mean ugly or plain, I agree. But I don't believe any architect or architectural critic would describe Crossways as an example of Brutalist architecture.

 

[Northern Light]

80 parking spaces for 327 units is very little and will likely result in spillover onto surrounding streets. The average home in the old city of Toronto has 0.9 cars so I don't see what they are proposing matching the realities of the city. The location may warrant a reduction in parking spaces but a ratio of 0.24 per unit is just unreasonable. I live in this area and don't want to see the narrow and already crowded streets overwhelmed.

Some developments near subways have been built with zero parking; but, in fairness those are outliers.

General comparables would show a range of 0.21 spaces per unit to a high of 0.45

The median ~0.3 ish.

But let's look at this site.

Virtually on top of a TTC Station, served by a major streetcar route, steps to a GO/UPX Station; not to mention 2 full-service supermarkets within a 30 second to 2 minute walk.

Few developments will make a better case for low end of range.

A tower in Liberty Village currently well under construction can't sell 50 spaces its already built, its seeking permission to convert them to commercial parking.

I think your concern about parking levels doesn't correlate with recent precedent.

 

[Mrgeosim]

Are you deliberately using the term "brutalist"! If you mean ugly or plain, I agree. But I don't believe any architect or architectural critic would describe Crossways as an example of Brutalist architecture.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crossways_(Toronto)​

The complex consists of twin 29-storey (92 m)[2] triangular brick towers, with a broad, terraced podium at their bases. One level of the podium contains an indoor mall. The Crossways was designed in the Brutalist style[3] by architects Webb Zerafa Menkès Housden Partnership[4] and built by Consolidated Building Corporation.

 

[Jimto]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crossways_(Toronto)​

The complex consists of twin 29-storey (92 m)[2] triangular brick towers, with a broad, terraced podium at their bases. One level of the podium contains an indoor mall. The Crossways was designed in the Brutalist style[3] by architects Webb Zerafa Menkès Housden Partnership[4] and built by Consolidated Building Corporation.

Just more mislabeling, I think. If you look at the Emporis site, which is the reference, you will see that the Architectural Style of one tower is "modernism" while the other is "brutalism".

Plain and ugly I think is a description we can agree

Just by the way, the building on the south-west corner is described as "modernist".

 

[WislaHD]

Finally, the City don't recognize the concept of a mobility or transit hub (seriously!).

The City will have to update their Official Plan to conform to provincial policy (including mobility hubs and major transit station areas surrounding each subway station) eventually.

The City is slacking on this because they lose their argument for opposing high density near subway stations, and this will upset the people who vote for city councilors.

 

[Jimto]

The City will have to update their Official Plan to conform to provincial policy (including mobility hubs and major transit station areas surrounding each subway station) eventually.

The City is slacking on this because they lose their argument for opposing high density near subway stations, and this will upset the people who vote for city councilors.

Including the NIMBY'ists who are campaigning against this development. According to their posters in the locality, one of their main arguments is that this development is in excess of a recommendation made in an Avenue study completed 12 or 13 years ago. The same people protesting today are the people who were involved in the "community consultation" back then and who opposed the Giraffe proposal.

 

[ProjectEnd]

This forum will not be tolerating any critique of The Crossways, thankyouverymuch!

 

[Jimto]

This forum will not be tolerating any critique of The Crossways, thankyouverymuch!

When Crossways is surrounded by buildings of similar height, it won't stand out like a sore thumb

 

[junctionist]

This forum will not be tolerating any critique of The Crossways, thankyouverymuch!

The Crossways doesn't deserve the criticism it gets. Brick Brutalism was used to create a distinctive and metropolitan landmark thanks to the confident use of geometric forms and terracing. Moreover, its mix of residential, office space, medical clinics, education uses, retail, and restaurants was ahead of its time for the area.

 

[Jimto]

The Crossways doesn't deserve the criticism it gets. Brick Brutalism was used to create a distinctive and metropolitan landmark thanks to the confident use of geometric forms and terracing. Moreover, its mix of residential, office space, medical clinics, education uses, retail, and restaurants was ahead of its time for the area.

Buildings don't care if you criticize them or not

 

[AlbertC]

Resubmission made on March 17, 2021:

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center

app.toronto.ca

 

[junctionist]

Is it just me, or has it been getting worse and worse since Giraffe?