49 - 51 Yonge | 216.36m | 60s | SmartCentres | a—A

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,551
Reaction score
4,678
Location
Quarks Bar
Toronto Model 11-25-21 49 Yonge.png
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,971
Reaction score
1,006
Beautiful job Koops! Love to see a flyby around the downtown core ending it at these two towers when you have the time . thanks!
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
3,104
Reaction score
3,817
I may have spoke too soon @Towered

They appear to be contemplating partially re-instating some of the original interiors (but they would be demolished first)

That does not change my opinion on this proposal; though should it go through, the more than can be saved the better.

From the Heritage Impact Assessment:

View attachment 365346

View attachment 365347

View attachment 365348
View attachment 365349

View attachment 365350
Maybe I'm jumping the gun too. But I can't see how they are going to do all that interior restoration work when the tower is taking most of its floor space save for the external heritage walls.
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,741
Reaction score
22,440
Ok why not a lot at yonge and elm. There's at least one proposal there for a similar height.
Sick Kids flight path on the south side and 8 Elm, Chelsea Green and Concord Sky on the other corners.
St. Michael's hospital landing pad clearance issues
It would be Sick Kids there, but yes. The whole south side of Elm is covered by that path:
1637848026469.png

The thing is though, we really dont need to build skyscrapers on every single site downtown that doesnt have a high-rise already. Yes I understand land is scarce, but there are certain sites that need to be spared outright. This definitely qualifies as one of them.
So then we need to allow R-Zones and Neighbourhoods to develop. If you force all development in a rapidly growing city into a small number of sites in one (maybe two) zoning category, things like this are inevitably going to happen.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,754
Reaction score
36,047
Location
Toronto/EY
So then we need to allow R-Zones and Neighbourhoods to develop. If you force all development in a rapidly growing city into a small number of sites in one (maybe two) zoning category, things like this are inevitably going to happen.

While we would agree that there is land that should be more easily open to development than it is.........

It has to be said that there are literally hundreds of sites where development can occur, where there is not yet an application in process or approved.
It is important not to ignore zoning problems; it's also important to concede that there are already many opportunities.
We are a very long way from actually running out of low-hanging fruit.

I would also add; we really must stop with suggestions that the City is somehow anti-development or anti-supply; we are the fastest growing City in North America, and would be right up there for the entire western world.

There is no way to argue with a straight-face that development in Toronto is stifled.

What one can reasonably contend is that certain types of development (particularly 'missing middle' is often stifled directly and/or indirectly by being made uneconomic.

That, with any luck, will begin to materially change next year subject to certain zoning reforms passing Council.

More work to do on that file, to be sure..........but progress is afoot.
 
Last edited:

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,741
Reaction score
22,440
While we would agree that there is land that should be more easily open to development than it is.........

It has to be said that there are literally hundreds of sites where development can occur, where there is not yet an application in process or approved.
It is important not to ignore zoning problems; it's also important to concede that there are already many opportunities.
We are a very long way from actually running out of low-hanging fruit.

I would also add; we really must stop with suggestions that the City is somehow anti-development or anti-supply; we are the fasted growing City in North America, and would be right up there for the entire western world.

There is no way to argue with a straight-face that development in Toronto is stifled.

What one can reasonably content is that certain types of development (particularly 'missing middle' is often stifled directly and/or indirectly by being made uneconomic.

That, with any luck, will begin to materially change next year subject to certain zoning reforms passing Council.

More work to do on that file, to be sure..........but progress is afoot.
If you've got suggestions (addresses, areas, etc.) I'd love to hear them.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
16,754
Reaction score
36,047
Location
Toronto/EY
If you've got suggestions (addresses, areas, etc.) I'd love to hear them.

The list would be pretty long, LOL

A lot of you it you would know, a lot of it is coming into the pipeline (Choice's properties that haven't yet seen apps, Riocan's etc etc.), some quite substantial in size.

But there are properties that aren't in the hands of developers yet (so far as I know) that read well. (sufficient area, mcr or commercial, non-employment zoning, height-residential precedent)

3400 Danforth is a good example.

Intersection of 2 major roads.

Served by 2 transit routes, more if you add Warden a block away.

Large site 0.6ha/1.5ac

No heritage implications, wouldn't be missed by anyone.

No immediate residential neighbours to object to anything.

1637851116141.png


1637851263261.png


7 storey precedent 1 block away:

1637851383746.png



******

I don't want to clutter up this thread with other sites as examples; we can start a should-be redeveloped thread for that, if so desired.

Suffice to say examples like the above are in abundance across the city.
 

tstormers

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
450
Reaction score
1,876
The list would be pretty long, LOL

A lot of you it you would know, a lot of it is coming into the pipeline (Choice's properties that haven't yet seen apps, Riocan's etc etc.), some quite substantial in size.

But there are properties that aren't in the hands of developers yet (so far as I know) that read well. (sufficient area, mcr or commercial, non-employment zoning, height-residential precedent)

3400 Danforth is a good example.

Intersection of 2 major roads.

Served by 2 transit routes, more if you add Warden a block away.

Large site 0.6ha/1.5ac

No heritage implications, wouldn't be missed by anyone.

No immediate residential neighbours to object to anything.

View attachment 365383

View attachment 365384

7 storey precedent 1 block away:

View attachment 365385


******

I don't want to clutter up this thread with other sites as examples; we can start a should-be redeveloped thread for that, if so desired.

Suffice to say examples like the above are in abundance across the city.
Nooooooo, my Harvey's!!!! Would be missed!!

lol JK, but I do go there often.
 

Yegger

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
715
Reaction score
1,111
Location
Downtown
Do we have any inclination regarding whether this is a serious proposal aimed for construction or a zoning exercise to flip the property?

Smart Centre REITs portfolio is composed of mostly industrial and suburban commercial lots with little in the form of urban projects (especially with heritage preservation). According to their Q3 report, they have a big stake in York Region with what seems like very little focus (at least strategically) on downtown Toronto.

Just pointing out that maybe this pivot is so they can offload the property for a big premium as opposed to oversee its redevelopment.
 

am29

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 15, 2014
Messages
591
Reaction score
507
I don't understand why the City doesn't spend the cash now to build an elevated Heli Pad, surely the cost of that would be a lot less significant than the recurring tax revenue lost by limiting potential productive future density over such a large path area.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
31,156
Reaction score
23,635
Location
Toronto
I don't understand why the City doesn't spend the cash now to build an elevated Heli Pad, surely the cost of that would be a lot less significant than the recurring tax revenue lost by limiting potential productive future density over such a large path area.

Because those helipads - and the properites they sit on - aren't owned by the city, for one? Also, does having extremely elevated helipads for hospitals even make sense?

AoD
 
Last edited:

3Dementia

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,761
Reaction score
2,536
Is Brookfield vending that site (they're not)? You can only build on what you own or what you can acquire...
Yeah I'm trying to broker a deal between SmartCentres and Brookfield as I write this (I'm still on hold listening to muzak).
 

Top