Toronto 200 Gateway Boulevard | 153.05m | 48s | Novi Properties | SvN

[Northern Light]

New Application into the AIC

@3Dementia will happy to have something with a double-digit height to report on elsewhere. LOL

@HousingNowTO will likely want to make note of this proposal as well.

This is the 'missing link' in parcels that have been seeing intensification proposals on Grenoble and St. Dennis in the Flemingdon Park area.

This is a 2 building proposal, with a 47s tower going into the open space/north of the existing building, and a new 12s midrise going in on the Don Mills frontage.

The App:

Application Details

app.toronto.ca

From the Docs:

Same render as above, but slightly larger, caption removed:

12s Don Mills-facing tower in foreground, existing building to the east/right, 47s proposal in the background.

Site Plan:

Comments will follow after some more sleep and some coffee, LOL

 

[Northern Light]

Ok, time for some comments:

I endorse the intensification, broadly speaking.

The height asks are consistent with area precedents (existing and proposed)

In terms of architectural expression, I don't think is SvNs best work. Its not bad; but the cut-outs to the 'white' cladding don't work for me on either tower, though appear much more odd and out of place on the tower.

Issues: The 47s tower very much does cast shadows on the new (proposed) park to the north.

That's a bit of a problem.

The above are from March/Sept shadow studies.

Ideally, had the various owners here had thoughtful conversation, this tower might be roughly where the park is proposed and the park where the tower is proposed. (this would eliminate much of the shadow issue).

However, the separation distances with other proposals in the area would make this shift either difficult or impossible. (I'm not doing all the math right now)

Other than a straight haircut, I do wonder about the extending the 47s towers lower levels to the west, offsetting that with a drop in height and or more tapering.

I also feel that more of the height should be on the Don Mills frontage here; but I can see why they made the choices they did if one looks at vehicle circulation and minimizing changes to the existing on-site hirise.

***

Parking ratios are way high for a site that will be MTSA and walking distance from two rapid transit lines. That needs to be cut down.

 

[toronto647]

I wonder whether in the future they will demolish existing rental buildings and create higher density? Flemo will be a bit awkward with potentially very poor and decently rich people living side by side. Regent park on the other end was a full tear down.

Ontario Line will only accelerate the gentrification of this area... for the better.

 

[Northern Light]

I wonder whether in the future they will demolish existing rental buildings and create higher density?

Some rental buildings in some of the proposals are proposed for demolition, though that is not the case here.

If the existing rental stock is in decent condition, and deemed viable for the forseeable future, there are steep economic hurdles to knocking it down.

Keep in mind, every rental unit must be replaced and offered to existing tenants at the existing rent (plus inflation). The Rochefort proposal which does involve tearing down existing apartments gives an instructive example of how much new density
you need to justify that choice.

Here, you have a moderately tall, existing, 17s building, that's an expensive tear down and rebuild, and lots of replacement rental. I do think, in an ideal world, had the various players on this block fully co-operated and/or consolidated their assets, at least one existing building would be coming down in order to create a better overall site plan.

But that same burden on just one proponent has much more challenging pro-formas.

Flemo will be a bit awkward with potentially very poor and decently rich people living side by side. Regent park on the other end was a full tear down.

Uhh, yes, but...... Regent Park includes all brand new Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) housing, replacing every single unit torn down, and adding some on top. So it likewise features very low income residents sharing streets and even some buildings, side by side with higher income residents.

In general, this is now understood as a good thing; the mixed-income community.

The short reasons for why would be that middle and high-income earners tend to have more political influence and more temerity to demand good quality public services (snow removal, graffiti removal, policing, transit etc etc.) than do lower income residents.

Additionally, the money of higher-income residents tends to spin off as more shopping and services in the area, to the benefit of all residents, and more employment opportunities, often in retail.

The combination of the above also tends to result in lower rates of crime.

The only real distinction here is that because the older housing stock is being retained, the income difference building to building may be a bit more visible. That said, this is all market rent housing, and it ain't cheap!

 

[Paclo]

Resubmitted with the following changes:

• Building A has increased from 47 to 48-storeys
• The dedicated townhouse blocks Buildings C1 & C2 have been removed
• Total proposed residential units increased from 558 to 671
• Total bicycle parking increased from 638 to 663
• Total vehicular parking increased from 496 to 504

Updated renderings: