Toronto 656 Danforth Avenue | 160.73m | 49s | Del Boca Vista Properties Inc | Studio JCI

300+ attendees. So everything from rational to totally bonkers in the chat & verbal Q/A.

View attachment 456878


Fletcher did Fletcher --- blaming Ford and the Ontario Line, etc. with incomplete / incorrect facts...

View attachment 456879

...someone compared it to the "Holocaust", etc.

View attachment 456880

Some of these are more silly/problematic than others.

But what's safe to say is that the word 'holocaust' was used most unwisely there.

Equally, Councillor Fletcher really has to go. Not so much for her opinions (mostly) or even her votes (mostly) but for the fact she well and truly has no clue.

I would be remiss if I didn't thank @HousingNowTO for his patience in monitoring public meetings, something I tend to avoid like the plague if I can.
 
Last edited:
City Slides...

1676602499926.png

1676602540345.png

1676602595043.png


1676602626997.png


1676602662551.png


1676602710980.png


1676602784229.png


NOTE : Current MAXIMUMS are laughably low, and City Planning / City Council should hang their heads in shame about those ZONING numbers.
 

Attachments

  • 1676602743371.png
    1676602743371.png
    150.6 KB · Views: 50
Didn't screenshot the developer slides... because this site is clearly going to the OLT on a developer appeal --- or getting a MZO.

I also don't see a planning approval happening of the current version, as-is.

i happen to think there's real room for improvement here in terms of architecture, setbacks and streetscapes.

I'm not unduly phased by the height, but in light of context/precedent it is a very large ask.

Absent an MZO, I'm not confident what you see here would actually fly at the OLT. They lean developer-friendly, but that would be one hell of a precedent.

Regardless, I'm inclined to think it heads that way, with some likelihood of a settlement near to the hearing date.

Possible we could just see a re-submission here though; doesn't seem like the world's most experienced team; will they blink? Dunno.
 
I also don't see a planning approval happening of the current version, as-is.

i happen to think there's real room for improvement here in terms of architecture, setbacks and streetscapes.

I'm not unduly phased by the height, but in light of context/precedent it is a very large ask.

Absent an MZO, I'm not confident what you see here would actually fly at the OLT. They lean developer-friendly, but that would be one hell of a precedent.

Regardless, I'm inclined to think it heads that way, with some likelihood of a settlement near to the hearing date.

Possible we could just see a re-submission here though; doesn't seem like the world's most experienced team; will they blink? Dunno.

New precedents have to be set. Toronto is a very big city and it's going to continue to grow. The idea of 2.5 GFA on properties so close to a subway line is absolutely ridiculous.

Toronto is on pace to hit 10 million quicker than many people think. We have to build and a lot.
 
New precedents have to be set. Toronto is a very big city and it's going to continue to grow. The idea of 2.5 GFA on properties so close to a subway line is absolutely ridiculous.

Toronto is on pace to hit 10 million quicker than many people think. We have to build and a lot.

We're not disagreeing at all.

I simply stated that I don't see this going ahead as currently proposed.

I'm not suggesting it will be haircut down to a midrise or anything.

As I noted, I'm not even phased by by the height per se; but I do think the massing and architectural expression leave considerable room for improvement.

Irrespective of what I am or am not phased by though, I think one probably does get a bit of a hair cut; but we shall see.
 
We're not disagreeing at all.

I simply stated that I don't see this going ahead as currently proposed.

I'm not suggesting it will be haircut down to a midrise or anything.

As I noted, I'm not even phased by by the height per se; but I do think the massing and architectural expression leave considerable room for improvement.

Irrespective of what I am or am not phased by though, I think one probably does get a bit of a hair cut; but we shall see.
I'm guessing they'll get 32 floors.
 
Lol so everyone else in the area has to give 12.5m setbacks and this proposal is 9M and 2M...convenient.

Ok, so I think it's important to say that this building has not been approved and an 'ask' is not a 'get'.

But perhaps more important here, I have to correct your perception of what you are seeing.

The 12.5m comes from the requirement for a 25M separation distance between towers.

When you're looking at this building, the 9M setback is from Pape, there will be no towers on Pape itself (the road), you'll note the assumption for the facing building on the other site (which isn't a real proposal by the way), this is a hypothetical 'block context plan'........ is 11M; if you add the 11M, to the 9M + the width of Pape, you're well over 25M separation.

The 2M setback is based on Mx proposing a 3-storey transit station next to this with no tower above.
 
Ok, so I think it's important to say that this building has not been approved and an 'ask' is not a 'get'.

But perhaps more important here, I have to correct your perception of what you are seeing.

The 12.5m comes from the requirement for a 25M separation distance between towers.

When you're looking at this building, the 9M setback is from Pape, there will be no towers on Pape itself (the road), you'll note the assumption for the facing building on the other site (which isn't a real proposal by the way), this is a hypothetical 'block context plan'........ is 11M; if you add the 11M, to the 9M + the width of Pape, you're well over 25M separation.

The 2M setback is based on Mx proposing a 3-storey transit station next to this with no tower above.
Correct - and if Metrolinx proposes a second tower above the track there appears to be enough room to have 25M tower separation between the three towers on the block. The 3M east setback 'ask' may have to change however to achieve those separations
 
Correct - and if Metrolinx proposes a second tower above the track there appears to be enough room to have 25M tower separation between the three towers on the block. The 3M east setback 'ask' may have to change however to achieve those separations

Just barely, maybe.

The block is ~130M long, the orientation/shape of any massing would matter, but if you assume roughly square floor plates, you would see about 27.5M of width x 3, + 50M total separation gives you 132.5M; but that's with zero setback from Pape or Eaton.

Now, obviously you can make the building more deep than wide. But in so doing, if you allow for setbacks (including for sidewalk widening) of ~10M on each end.....it's a bit cramped.

But workable, as the lots are ~65M deep.

* the hypothetical park on the Green P lot may create additional shadowing issues however, given that any towers on this block would be to the south of same.
 
Just barely, maybe.

The block is ~130M long, the orientation/shape of any massing would matter, but if you assume roughly square floor plates, you would see about 27.5M of width x 3, + 50M total separation gives you 132.5M; but that's with zero setback from Pape or Eaton.

Now, obviously you can make the building more deep than wide. But in so doing, if you allow for setbacks (including for sidewalk widening) of ~10M on each end.....it's a bit cramped.

But workable, as the lots are ~65M deep.

* the hypothetical park on the Green P lot may create additional shadowing issues however, given that any towers on this block would be to the south of same.
That was an incredibly quick analysis. If that's the case then yes the buildings would have to be deeper than wide (similar to what the applicant proposed) to achieve the 25m separations because it would be important to maintain 6m setback from Eaton but less so Pape
 

Back
Top