Northern Light
Superstar
This new application into the AIC is a curious assembly, roughly at Richmond and Parliament, at the north-west Quadrant.
Of note, the applicant is explicitly committing purpose-built rental. Perhaps @HousingNowTO might take an interest in this one for that reason.
The site, outlined in orange below, is a two-tower proposal (35+16) that excludes the actual corner.
From the Applicant's Planning Report, we see the as-is condition of the site:
Now the App:
www.toronto.ca
From the Docs:
Site Plan:
Ground Floor Plan:
Parking Ratio * (94 resident spaces) 0.16
Elevator Ratio: * requires breakdown into the 2 towers, the podium units read a single building. But overall, 5 elevators across 588 units or 0.85 elevators per 100 units.
****
Comments: Purpose-built rental is almost always a good thing. I take no issue w/the height here, which I think can be easily justified. The massing is a bit clunky, and I think requires greater setbacks. Aesthetically, we've seen much worse, but this is not
Sweeney's best work. The podium in particular would benefit from further refinement, it is, supposedly, intended to give off a heritage vibe, but 55 Mercer she ain't.
The proponent's planners seem to feel they ought to be able to count their proposed POPs as a parkland dedication. Uh Uh. If the applicant still owns the land, its not a parkland dedication.
To quote the app:
During our Pre-Consultation Application Meeting with City Staff, Parks
requested an on-site provision and the Owner
agreed to the provision, provided it could be of this
compact urban form and that it could be a POPS
to ensure its designed and maintained to serve the
residents of this rental building
How generous of the applicant, cough.
A final note on parking. The applicant appears to be setting aside 58 visitor + commercial spaces. Yet the plans show only two modest size retailers. This requires further justification, or the removal of said parking.
Of note, the applicant is explicitly committing purpose-built rental. Perhaps @HousingNowTO might take an interest in this one for that reason.
The site, outlined in orange below, is a two-tower proposal (35+16) that excludes the actual corner.
From the Applicant's Planning Report, we see the as-is condition of the site:
Now the App:
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
From the Docs:
Site Plan:
Ground Floor Plan:
Parking Ratio * (94 resident spaces) 0.16
Elevator Ratio: * requires breakdown into the 2 towers, the podium units read a single building. But overall, 5 elevators across 588 units or 0.85 elevators per 100 units.
****
Comments: Purpose-built rental is almost always a good thing. I take no issue w/the height here, which I think can be easily justified. The massing is a bit clunky, and I think requires greater setbacks. Aesthetically, we've seen much worse, but this is not
Sweeney's best work. The podium in particular would benefit from further refinement, it is, supposedly, intended to give off a heritage vibe, but 55 Mercer she ain't.
The proponent's planners seem to feel they ought to be able to count their proposed POPs as a parkland dedication. Uh Uh. If the applicant still owns the land, its not a parkland dedication.
To quote the app:
During our Pre-Consultation Application Meeting with City Staff, Parks
requested an on-site provision and the Owner
agreed to the provision, provided it could be of this
compact urban form and that it could be a POPS
to ensure its designed and maintained to serve the
residents of this rental building
How generous of the applicant, cough.
A final note on parking. The applicant appears to be setting aside 58 visitor + commercial spaces. Yet the plans show only two modest size retailers. This requires further justification, or the removal of said parking.
