Toronto 2810 Bayview | 138.33m | 42s | Osmington Gerofsky | Wallman Architects



the-bayview-3.jpg
the-bayview-4.jpg
 
Osmington Gerofsky and Alterra have picked this one up with the addition of 2816 Bayview to expand the site and support higher density.

Conceptual massing for a tower was produced by Kirkor, but we can expect an entirely new consultant team here:
1710364143243.png
 
I'm really curious how OGDC is going to achieve the 20m stepback requirement to the neighbourhoods to the east with their tower. The homes have a depth of 33m, which is not enough.

Agree w/ @ProjectEnd - 2818 bayview doesn't work well alone for tower. It has the depth for it, but not the width to hit the 12.5m stepbacks to north and south. It would need assembly w/ 2816
 
1Ć0 said:
I'm really curious how OGDC is going to achieve the 20m stepback requirement to the neighbourhoods to the east with their tower. The homes have a depth of 33m, which is not enough.

Agree w/ @ProjectEnd - 2818 bayview doesn't work well alone for tower. It has the depth for it, but not the width to hit the 12.5m stepbacks to north and south. It would need assembly w/ 2816
Click to expand...

Paclo said:
Osmington Gerofsky and Alterra have picked this one up with the addition of 2816 Bayview to expand the site and support higher density.
Click to expand...
 
2816 doesn't add depth to the site, just width. So you can hit your 12.5m to the N and S very comfortably now, but it still doesn't solve the 20m stepback req to the neighbourhoods.

Unless these guys are doing a 10m wide tower with 20m stepbacks to the back and 3m to the front, or seeking reprieve from the city on the 20m req, or the homes to the east have been redesignated between Jan 2024 and today... I'm very curious to see how they pull it off.

And I don't think the city is ready to bend on the 20m stepback to neighbourhoods req yet given a number of recent tower approvals in midtown are hinging on it. And interestingly enough, I understand the 20m stepback as being a guideline in the tall buildings manual and not policy

1711557610917.png
 
This one has returned.......with a much, much higher density ask, as foretold by UT soothsayer @Paclo. We're now as 42s! Architect is now Wallman.

@1Ć0, and @ProjectEnd will doubtless have interesting thoughts to offer, and one must always summon @sunnyraytoronto for such things w/in his dominion.

@HousingNowTO this is high density, residential right next to the subway, go get'em!

First, the new Application:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Then the list of properties:

1722586708880.png


Now the Renders:

1722586778071.png


1722586867500.png


1722586907245.png


1722586931652.png


Site Plan:

1722587000281.png





Ground Floor Plan:

1722587060281.png



Site Stats:

1722587141303.png


Project Description:

1722587183759.png

1722587203972.png



1722587228584.png

Parking Ratio: 539 units, 129 resident spaces - 0.24 spaces per unit

Elevator Ratio: 539 units - 4 elevators - 0.74 elevators per 100 units or one elevator per 134.75 units

No comments - for now.......... I await those from others tagged above.
 
To understand how this 2810 Bayview site went from Dormer Homes recent OMB/OLT approved 7-storey 2.89FSI with 67 Units,... to Osmington's proposal of 42-storey 12.98FSI with 539 units,... you have to understand what happened to the north at 461 Sheppard East.

RE: 461 Sheppard East (site to north; ESSO gas station site at southwest corner of Sheppard & Bayview) - I would have betted big that site be limited to about 10-storey due to 45 degree angular plane rule to protect the Single Residential Houses to SouthWest of site.

461 Sheppard Avenue East | 144m | 44s | 461 Sheppard Ave E Properties | Graziani + Corazza

The Esso and Circle K at the corner of Sheppard and Bayview was listed for sale on Cushman Wakefield's website. As per the broker brochure: Conceptual density and massing from brochure marketing material:
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

But Developer got approved for their 44-storey 13.07FSI with 513 Unit,... at the City level - didn't even have to go OMB/OLT! WTF!

So what happened to the 45 degree angular plane rule that's supposed to protect the adjacent Single Residential House Neighbourhoods,... that rule has never been violated before! Well,... at a recent Sheppard Renew Community Consultation - review of the area's Secondary Plan along Sheppard (after 461 Sheppard was approved),.. CityStaff reveal they'll rezone the adjacent Single Residential House neighbourhood SouthWest of Sheppard & Bayview to something else,.. might be Parkland or Retail (good luck making Retail work here) - they don't know yet,.... but it won't be Single Residential Houses! 45 angular plane rule don't apply to Retail,... but useful to protect Park! But don't worry,... it won't happen now, it'll be like 30 years or so from now,... so CityStaff are changing zoning on the fly,... in the meantime, land vultures are knocking on doors trying to land assemble these Single Residential Houses,...

1722600639878.png



So that's how this 2810 Bayview site went from Dormer Homes recent OMB/OLT approved 7-storey 2.89FSI with 67 Units,... to Osmington's proposal of 42-storey 12.98FSI with 539 units,... which will now be approved,....
 
sunnyraytoronto said:
... CityStaff are changing zoning on the fly,... in the meantime, land vultures are knocking on doors trying to land assemble these Single Residential Houses,...

So that's 2810 Bayview site went from Dormer Homes recent OMB/OLT approved 7-storey 2.89FSI with 67 Units,... to Osmington's proposal of 42-storey 12.98FSI with 539 units,... which will now be approved,....
Click to expand...
Single Residential Houses inside PMTSAs should be assembled, in the core - and in the suburbs.

The Angular-Plane was a mistake, that is now (finally) being corrected.

It's just unfortunate that there's no GREEN-P lots at Bayview to surplus for City-initiated redevelopment, and the nearest HOUSING NOW site is over at Esther Shiner works yard near Oriole station.

1722616144956.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
Single Residential Houses inside PMTSAs should be assembled, in the core - and in the suburbs.
Click to expand...

You do have a propensity for creating bears to poke sometimes, LOL

@sunnyraytoronto can speak for himself, but I don't think what he wrote took a hard position on the removing or not removing the SFH.

Rather it struck me that he felt any discussion about wholesale rezoning of an area ought to be had in the open. Clearly, some have inside knowledge of the impending change, and that is an unfair advantage in the market with literally hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

I think the ultimate rezoning here was foreseeable, and I frankly expect it to encompass the entire area from Yonge to Bayview and the 401 to the north side of Sheppard.

I also think that's a fine idea, if we add Willowdale Station back to the Sheppard line to support that density and IF we put in place the various community/support services, parkland, schools etc to support that, as well as a new crossing of the 401 somewhere (not an interchange).

That, of course, will cost a bundle, and we need to look at timing and pros and cons vs other areas of the City with other cost profiles for the change.

HousingNowTO said:
The Angular-Plane was a mistake, that is now (finally) being corrected.
Click to expand...

The idea behind the angular plane was fine; the execution of it and the rigidity of it were not.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
You do have a propensity for creating bears to poke sometimes, LOL

@sunnyraytoronto can speak for himself, but I don't think what he wrote took a hard position on the removing or not removing the SFH.

Rather it struck me that he felt any discussion about wholesale rezoning of an area ought to be had in the open. Clearly, some have inside knowledge of the impending change, and that is an unfair advantage in the market with literally hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

I think the ultimate rezoning here was foreseeable, and I frankly expect it to encompass the entire area from Yonge to Bayview and the 401 to the north side of Sheppard.

I also think that's a fine idea, if we add Willowdale Station back to the Sheppard line to support that density and IF we put in place the various community/support services, parkland, schools etc to support that, as well as a new crossing of the 401 somewhere (not an interchange).

That, of course, will cost a bundle, and we need to look at timing and pros and cons vs other areas of the City with other cost profiles for the change.



The idea behind the angular plane was fine; the execution of it and the rigidity of it were not.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be shocked if these last few dozen sfh got up zoned as well, making a relatively coherent chunk of development land from Yonge to Leslie.
1722974484370.png

But where would you say a crossing should go of the 401? And would it be a multiuse trail or include vehicle traffic?
The southern terminuses of Bessarion Road and Willowdale Ave seem like good mid points between interchanges that would also increase the walk in radius of the one existing and one potential stations.
 
jmi22 said:
Wouldn't be shocked if these last few dozen sfh got up zoned as well, making a relatively coherent chunk of development land from Yonge to Leslie.
View attachment 586266
Click to expand...

Neither would I.

jmi22 said:
But where would you say a crossing should go of the 401?
Click to expand...

jmi22 said:
And would it be a multiuse trail or include vehicle traffic?
Click to expand...

Ideally it would allow for cars, in order to relieve the mess that is Bayview at 401, we're not going to shift the interchange traffic away from that location, but if it can shift local traffic that would be helpful.

However, allowing for cars is no small matter as one has to have a receiving road on the south side that is appropriate to the volume.

Both potential roads from the north meet residential, winding side streets on the south side. These would have to upgraded as far south as York Mills, and through some rather well-heeled, pricey real estate areas.

Its a challenge.

If you went pedestrian/cycling only I'm not sure the usage potential is there for what would be a very long crossing, either as a tunnel or if elevated, likely come with long switch-back ramps at both ends.

Willowdale is further complicated by a buried creek in the area, meaning supports have to go around this and preserve appropriate maintenance access. (Glendora Park is over the creek)

****

This is why we need to properly plan and model out different choices about what modal splits can be realistically achieved, at what cost, and whose paying.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
This is why we need to properly plan and model out different choices about what modal splits can be realistically achieved, at what cost, and whose paying.
Click to expand...
I'm sure this is far beyond what the city has the bandwidth to plan for at the moment, but what are your thoughts on the further subdividing of the suburban 'blocks' made up by the old concession roads? I've talked it out with friends in the past to mixed reception.
I think a lot of this could be the northern extension of existing roads that simply dwindle out at various barriers, such as Avenue and Spadina. But seems like a finer grain street grid will be needed to sustain the spike in population soon to hit these neighborhoods.
1722983179674.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top