Toronto 50 Eglinton West | 194.2m | 58s | Madison Group | AUDAX

toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com


50-90 Eglinton Avenue West & 17-19 Henning Avenue - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting​


Wednesday, June 5, 2024 6:30 PM - 8:30 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Register for webinar
If you want to attend, register now. When your registration is approved, you'll receive an invitation to join the webinar.

Host
Amie Chung

Agenda
Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to participate in discussions on the application and have your say.
 
Refusal Report to the next meeting of NYCC:


Summary: Too Tall, doesn't transition down from Yonge-Eglinton Centre, Violates Shadow policy on Eglinton Park, adverse wind conditions, does not provide for a needed 0.4M widening of Eglinton, servicing issues, transportation demand management questions. Finally, the applicant has not explicitly committed to honouring the S.37 commitments from the previous approval nor offered any increase benefits commensurate with their larger ask.

My take: I think the City's got a strong case here, I don't see this passing muster at OLT in its current form. Too many issues compounding.

***

@Paclo This proposal is currently represented by 3 different pins on the map from the various proposals that preceded it. Perhaps we could consolidate and/or lock a couple of the threads so that there's one clear thread?
 
Northern Light said:
@Paclo This proposal is currently represented by 3 different pins on the map from the various proposals that preceded it. Perhaps we could consolidate and/or lock a couple of the threads so that there's one clear thread?
Click to expand...

The former separate Madison plan for 90 Eglinton West has been marked cancelled and should redirect to this page & thread.

21-35 Henning is still a separate proposal (in the CMC phase of the appeal process).
 
Demolition permit for 90 Eglinton W has been issued
1721762139359.png
 
Northern Light said:
Refusal Report to the next meeting of NYCC:


Summary: Too Tall, doesn't transition down from Yonge-Eglinton Centre, Violates Shadow policy on Eglinton Park, adverse wind conditions, does not provide for a needed 0.4M widening of Eglinton, servicing issues, transportation demand management questions. Finally, the applicant has not explicitly committed to honouring the S.37 commitments from the previous approval nor offered any increase benefits commensurate with their larger ask.

My take: I think the City's got a strong case here, I don't see this passing muster at OLT in its current form. Too many issues compounding.

***

@Paclo This proposal is currently represented by 3 different pins on the map from the various proposals that preceded it. Perhaps we could consolidate and/or lock a couple of the threads so that there's one clear thread?
Click to expand...

I understand revising the proposal to accomodate for widening Eglinton W but Too tall? Shadowing?? look at the height of the building immediately to the east. This sounds like the "creeping density" rhetoric from people living in sprawling SFH. Why dont they move to Peterborough?
 
xy3 said:
I understand the accomdation for widening but Too tall? Shadowing?? look at the height of the building immediately to the east. This sounds like the "creeping density" rhetoric from people living in sprawling SFH. Why dont they move to Peterborough?
Click to expand...

The shadowing is about Eglinton Park and is an entirely legitimate issue.

While I haven't spoken to the planner on the file, I suspect the issue of height, as apart from shadowing is pro-forma. By which I mean, once the decision has been made to write a refusal report, you want to cover all your bases before you head off to OLT. The height exceeds what's prescribed in the Secondary Plan, so its going to get a mention.

There are lots of issues identified here, several of which are substantive.

No one needs to move to Peterborough.
 
I don't get the too tall issue here... shadowing concerns sure, that happens all over Toronto. But come on... this is only 180 metres from Yonge & Eglinton, 1 city block. Also, I'm curious about the shadow cast by 36 Eglinton W, since it is only 30 metres away and slightly taller.

Here is the area in question:

Toronto Model 07-24-24 Yonge-Eglinton.png
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
God forbid we have shadows over parks when every year breaks a new heat record.
Click to expand...
...that's not the point. Rather it blocks light coming into trees, grass and other plants that relies on it to make a park, a park. And there are plenty of other buildings that already cast shadows you can stand besides if that makes you feel better. It won't though, because with the high humid index that comes with the heat will make it all unbearable anyhow...so it has less to do with us seeking shade and more to do with keeping a green space more sustainable.
 
Last edited:
One danger of the city dragging their feet over this nonsense is that the developer could sell the site, and this nice AUDAX proposal could quickly turn into a cheapo Wallman or G&C proposal

Plenty of pocket parks in the NYC that are heavily shaded and nicer than most of our parks.

Id take this over an overly-sunny patch of grass.
 
Last edited:
goodcitywhenfinished said:
God forbid we have shadows over parks when every year breaks a new heat record.
Click to expand...

This misrepresents the City's position, and you either know this, or should know this, at this point.

The rationale for shadow restrictions (not prohibitions) is sound science and clear, as outlined in part, above by @UtakataNoAnnex.

The rationale is also to benefit humans who enjoy the sun, notably in seasons that are not summer, when the weather is cooler, and the sun essential to making an experience pleasant.
 
xy3 said:
One danger of the city dragging their feet over this nonsense is that the developer could sell the site, and this nice AUDAX proposal could quickly turn into a cheapo Wallman or G&C proposal
Click to expand...

The City is not foot dragging anything, they already approved a proposal at this site, then the developer changed it.

xy3 said:
Plenty of pocket parks in the NYC that are heavily shaded and nicer than most of our parks.

Id take this over an overly-sunny patch of grass.
Click to expand...

I'm fascinated that in the example you chose to cite, you're missing all the sun coming through the trees and lighting up and nourishing the tree canopy.
 
Northern Light said:
I'm fascinated that in the example you chose to cite, you're missing all the sun coming through the trees and lighting up and nourishing the tree canopy.
Click to expand...
...should also show a pic of folks grasping at straws on a sunny day. >.<
 
Northern Light said:
The City is not foot dragging anything, they already approved a proposal at this site, then the developer changed it.



I'm fascinated that in the example you chose to cite, you're missing all the sun coming through the trees and lighting up and nourishing the tree canopy.
Click to expand...


Regardless of whether you think the city is foot dragging (I believe community consultations should be scrapped so you may consider me biased ) BOC rate cuts pose an even greater danger of this project turning into a zoning excercise/land banking flip.

It's possible that was the intention all along. The design seems to good to be true.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top