Northern Light
Superstar
Google maps is a friend, LOL
The floor plate dimensions are just in my head.
Then it's an easy calculation.
Toronto 656 Danforth Avenue | 160.73m | 49s | Del Boca Vista | Studio JCI
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Google maps is a friend, LOL
The floor plate dimensions are just in my head.
Then it's an easy calculation.
GioBuild
New Member
The entire building code and rules in the City make no sense. Everything is arbitrary.
The ENTIRE building rules in Toronto need to change.
The ENTIRE building rules in Toronto need to change.
Northern Light
Superstar
The above post doesn't make much sense.
The City of Toronto does not make up its own building code; it uses the Ontario Building Code.
If you mean its guidelines/performance standards for mid-rise and tall-buildings, that's different. But I would still add then, that these are not arbitrary or senseless, they are, sometimes over zealously enforced, they are sometimes misinterpreted, and there are spots where the rules, however well intended, delivered unreasonable side effects and require a re-think. But I wouldn't call any of these arbitrary or sense-less.
Lenser
Senior Member
For some folks, it's simply easier to make the city of Toronto the big bad Boogeyman and leave it at that.
GabrielHurl
Active Member
“skyscraperization of the Danforth”
Ward14-Danforth
New Member
“All voices welcome” (except dissenting points of view)
Northern Light
Superstar
Their website doesn't work particularly well for me:
Petition - Danforth Residents for Appropriate Development
The City of Toronto adopted policy and guidelines for the future development of the Danforth last year. They allow for increased density with an emphasis on preserving the neighbourhood’s unique…
danforthrad.ca
That may well be the case, though I'm not sure we see the evidence for that in the photos posted above.
Sure some of the statements read as assertively opposed; but I think that's to be expected; I would be interested to see the wording of their petition (couldn't get it to load) , as well as the tone of the meeting on the 13th.
I'm certainly not stuck on only 8s here; but I do happen to agree this is a conspicuous and problematic proposal.
I'm less concerned with height than I am what I perceive to be poor massing/appearance on a one-off basis;
I also do take issue w/unlivable studio units, or otherwise absurdly small living spaces.
***
But I am also concerned about infrastructure. The reflexive argument, but it's on a subway, fails to note how close Line 2 is to capacity (or was pre-pandemic, but that's coming back quickly); it also doesn't consider
everything from sewer/water, to electricity to schools, parks, libraries and so on.
I really do think we need to be more thoughtful; the precedent of this building may spawn a dozen more like it. At what cost to us all to upgrade the servicing? And will those upgrades be complete before or after the development arrives?
We need to be cautious in demonizing project opponents who while sometimes a tad hysterical may have legitimate points.
christiesplits
Senior Member
You can a) believe 49 stories is too high for the Danforth, probably the best retail stretch outside of downtown, and b) think the 8-ish storey Danforth planning guidelines were too timid.
My ideal Danforth would have 30-ish storey buildings at main intersections with mid-rises in the 12-15 storey range for the remainder.
My ideal Danforth would have 30-ish storey buildings at main intersections with mid-rises in the 12-15 storey range for the remainder.
Northern Light
Superstar
I essentially agree w/this, but I think in all cases it's dependent on what streetwall can be established with any given massing. I don't want a Danforth, or anywhere else really with a 12-storey streetwall.
So can you do 4s, with a 4M setback and then another 4-8s with or without a second setback? That would be determined by examining lot depth/width and a number of other factors. But we forever face the challenge that if the City sets the bar at 12s, someone will ask for 16s, and they will settle at 14s at the OLT; rinse, repeat with higher precedent established and the ask keeps rising.
I don't agree w/the level of restrictiveness of main-street zoning in much of Toronto; but I also prefer, in general, a level of prescriptive zoning that is absolute, and non-appealable.
This is part of what breeds strong opposition, it's never just one proposal and the height increase never stops.
We need to imagine that some areas can grow, but others are reasonably complete (not frozen in time, unchanging, but not ripe for vast intensification). We need to have plans that represent a complete thought.
ie. adequate space for pedestrians, cyclists, sewage, water, electricity, probable number of cars after mitigatory measures, transit, schools, retail, services and parks etc.
Last edited:
Cambry Ardship
New Member
Isn't this going to be at the interchange of the Ontario Line and Line 2? I'm unsure why capacity of the current subway line matters that much. There will be far more transit capacity and this seems like a sensible spot to build housing for it. Better to set a reasonable precedent for height like this than preemptively negotiate ourselves out of needed housing.
Northern Light
Superstar
We will to disagree, as you make no account of any of the other issues raised (sewer capacity, water capacity, school capacity, library capacity etc.) and you make no distinction between investor-owned condo boxes (what's proposed) and purpose-built rental or affordable housing.
I think you and I share many values, but you seem willing to overlook everything for housing, including whether that housing actually accomplishes your goal.
I don't think that's the right way to solve any problem, here or anywhere else.
Also the Ontario Line functionally replaces the Don Mills bus, not Line 2; it may see some transfers from the latter to the former which might free up a some capacity to the west, though one might expect that would be back-filled by latent demand, never mind net new housing, but will not free up any new capacity to the east, regardless.
That's not an argument against housing here, or dense or relatively tall housing; it's an argument against ill-conceived, open-ended free passes to dubious development which fails to address all those other concerns in a reasonable way.
No, I don't expect one building to pay for all the solutions, but I want a clear sense of the end game and an answer on who will pay for those solutions and when.
Again, I feel that way about everything, everywhere. We need more thoughts in complete sentences and paragraphs and fewer fragments that create as many or more problems than they solve.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I am not sure how this building is supposed to solve housing crises when it's being sold to people who never really have to worry about it...
...that said, I am also equally suspect those that oppose this building don't really care about a housing crises, but are using that issue to make their opposition more salable. And conveniently so.
...that said, I am also equally suspect those that oppose this building don't really care about a housing crises, but are using that issue to make their opposition more salable. And conveniently so.
Last edited:
Cambry Ardship
New Member
Ah, I was phone posting, so not really the best mechanism for writing something really long.
Questions around infrastructure for sure need to be addressed, but the Danforth will need to be developed. Regarding capacity, the census tracts touching the Danforth and Pape intersection have had their population decline by 17% between the 1971 and 2016 censuses. As well, pretty much the whole of the Danforth has seen large population declines as well across the time frame. This, to me, indicates that there exists spare sewer, water, school, and library capacity, at least for the meantime, until the City is able to renew any assets that need replacing and expand capacity as needed.
It also indicates there is an urgent need for development like this to make use of an area of the city that has more or less been locked in residential amber.
As for paying for these assets, I'm not sure why this is complicated. Development charges and property taxes are well defined mechanisms.
I thought the Ontario Line, at this site, would function as the downtown relief line as well, taking commuters right downtown to office destinations there. I think you've overlooked that in terms of transit options and how there may be less impact on Line 2 than you think.
Northern Light
Superstar
Well, see you're right about the declines in many pockets, but the problem is that your understanding of how sewer and water are structured is off. All the pipes are interconnected more/or less (well they all feed into a few trunk sewers).
So sewers at Danforth see flows from much further north, fairly far east.
School capacity is very strained at many schools in the area because of past school closures, and because we have a far higher school completion rate these days (in the 1960s most students left after grade 10); also, we have smaller class sizes today in the younger grades (typically 20-24 vs 30, that means more classrooms are required.
The only schools running with spare capacity of significance in the area area are a couple of the old heritage High Schools (notably Danforth).
The local elementary schools for this area would be Frankland, and Jackman. The former is currently at 103% of capacity, the latter at 99.8%
Its true there are schools well under capacity 2-3km to the east; but no one wants to walk their kid to school for an hour before work.
Danforth-Pape Library is the most under-sized district-class library in the City and severely over taxed. Just visit it.
****
Neither the TDSB nor the City of Toronto have sufficient funds to maintain assets as they are, let alone enlarge capacity. Secord Elementary school, a bit further east (Main Stn area) has had a 20-classroom porta-pack grafted on to the building and its building systems (a/c) are starting to fail and there is no budget for reconstruction and/or an addition/renovation.
TDSB capacity utilization rates can be found here:
As seen above, it indicated no such thing. Again, we don't build stuff until we have what's necessary to support the residents. I'm fine w/immigration, I'm fine w/density; but build the requisite supports or turn off the growth tap entirely.
The province just legislated a good chunk of those development charges out of existence and if Toronto has to balance its books next year, at the current crumby level of services, with no new investments in housing or transit by raising property tax, we're talking a hike over 20%, there is zero chance of that getting through Council and it still doesn't build one new LRT, one new affordable housing unit or enlarge one library.
I'm 100% in favour of a large property tax hike and tolling the Gardiner/DVP (which the province blocked); but again, until we've done what's needed we can't support the people we have. Pro-growth forces in this city, have, in my opinion, killed hundreds of homeless and poor people by driving them to freeze to death in winter, be victims of violence, succumb to addiction or die of dehydration in the summer.
We've chosen to invite more people without the housing to support them, and we've chosen to dis-invest in public services.
We can't fix that by more of the same.
Read:
Source: https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.net/-/med...a7953ca&hash=76F4E2ABA51A40E73D462B034462CBD3
Last edited:
Cambry Ardship
New Member
The City can't refuse to build the necessary infrastructure to support demographic changes and then use that intransigence as the justification to demand that immigration/growth policies change to justify their own lack of action.
As you point out, the City will need to transition to a higher property tax, lower development fee environment very shortly. Other cities, like Montreal have managed to do well with that. But it is a necessary shift: if TDSB and the City don't have the funds to maintain infrastructure, the solution is to increase taxes and pay for the necessary spending.
If developing these necessary buildings to house population growth is what it take to jump start these changes, then I'm fine with that. The City can't be stuck in a chicken-or-the-egg situation forever.
As you point out, the City will need to transition to a higher property tax, lower development fee environment very shortly. Other cities, like Montreal have managed to do well with that. But it is a necessary shift: if TDSB and the City don't have the funds to maintain infrastructure, the solution is to increase taxes and pay for the necessary spending.
If developing these necessary buildings to house population growth is what it take to jump start these changes, then I'm fine with that. The City can't be stuck in a chicken-or-the-egg situation forever.