Toronto 699 Lawrence West | 128.56m | 38s | Midtown West Residences | Core Architects

[Northern Light]

Well, someone doesn't lack for ambition........says the AIC, where a new application has arrived for this site, currently home to 2s retail.

Immediately the to the east, a gas station, and the west, a relatively recent 4s series of townhomes.

Clearly an MTSA play........

Application Details

app.toronto.ca

Streetview:

Aerial Pic:

Site size: ~1800m2/19000ft2

 

[Amare]

Ah yes, the "let's build 40-50+ story building because it's right next to transit, and screw existing neighborhood context play". Gotta love Toronto developers.

 

[sixrings]

Ah yes, the "let's build 40-50+ story building because it's right next to transit, and screw existing neighborhood context play". Gotta love Toronto developers.

The existing neighbourhood has slowly become old 1950s houses ripped down for McMansions. The McMansion owners didn’t exactly respect its neighbourhood. Why should the developers?

And I’d much rather a lot of people have access to a subway station than a smaller and smaller percentage of people who can buy these huge lots to live in 3500-4000 sq ft.

This is still a urban forum?

 

[ProjectEnd]

Ah yes, the "let's build 40-50+ story building because it's right next to transit, and screw existing neighborhood context play". Gotta love Toronto developers.

Um, yeah, exactly. More of this, please.

 

[allengeorge]

Ah yes, the "let's build 40-50+ story building because it's right next to transit, and screw existing neighborhood context play". Gotta love Toronto developers.

I’m incredibly unsympathetic to appeals to “neighbourhood context” given that these neighbourhoods have become completely unaffordable, and, rigid adherence to this principle is one of the drivers behind lack of housing in Toronto.

Since their creation the demographics of this area have changed, as has the built form. I’ve also stated previously that I don’t see why the built form of neighbourhood context is so important to preserve. If we were as concerned with neighbourhood context in the past as we are now, Toronto would still be a set of shacks clustered around the harbour.

 

[sixrings]

I’m incredibly unsympathetic to appeals to “neighbourhood context” given that these neighbourhoods have become completely unaffordable, and, rigid adherence to this principle is one of the drivers behind lack of housing in Toronto.

Since their creation the demographics of this area have changed, as has the built form. I’ve also stated previously that I don’t see why the built form of neighbourhood context is so important to preserve. If we were as concerned with neighbourhood context in the past as we are now, Toronto would still be a set of shacks clustered around the harbour.

These are the same people who have signs on their front lawns. “Say no to townhouses”. They don’t want a townhouse? Take a damn building!

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Ah yes, the "let's build 40-50+ story building because it's right next to transit, and screw existing neighborhood context play". Gotta love Toronto developers.

Where everyone drives a car in a sea of surface parking lots? It's not an existing neighbourhood I would be willing to support, as it's already long lost its soul for one...

 

[Amare]

The existing neighbourhood has slowly become old 1950s houses ripped down for McMansions. The McMansion owners didn’t exactly respect its neighbourhood. Why should the developers?

And I’d much rather a lot of people have access to a subway station than a smaller and smaller percentage of people who can buy these huge lots to live in 3500-4000 sq ft.

This is still a urban forum?

Um, yeah, exactly. More of this, please.

I’m incredibly unsympathetic to appeals to “neighbourhood context” given that these neighbourhoods have become completely unaffordable, and, rigid adherence to this principle is one of the drivers behind lack of housing in Toronto.

Since their creation the demographics of this area have changed, as has the built form. I’ve also stated previously that I don’t see why the built form of neighbourhood context is so important to preserve. If we were as concerned with neighbourhood context in the past as we are now, Toronto would still be a set of shacks clustered around the harbour.

To be clear, i'm not suggesting that building increased density should not be done on this site, or around any site close to rapid transit. The problem i'm outlining is the scale of the proposal.

Shop it down ~10 stories and that's fine. To use the subway as justification to build 40-50+ story towers everywhere without regard is just bad planning plain and simple. If we're using that as the primariy driver, let's build 40-50 story towers across Bloor-Danforth and we'll see how that goes. We've got to remember that there are times that the subway just doesnt work and the alternative routes in the area need to be taken into play. Ever try taking shuttle buses when this section of the University Line is down? It's an absolute gongshow, much worse the a Bloor-Danforth line shutdown simply because the alternative routes in the area are already clogged up.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm certainly not going to defend the status quo here.

But I think I was correct in using the word ambitious, not only in the context of what's recently been completed here, but in terms of the ask by nearby applications.

In terms of my personal take, I frankly want to see the proposal and what its offering, in terms of aesthetics, retail/pedestrian experience and neighbourhood benefit.
I'd also love to see the Context Plan, seeing as, if this were to get greenlit at 40s, I presume the expectation would that every site between this building and Lawrence West Station, on both sides of the road would get at least that much as well.

***

I will say, this section of Lawrence West is one the worst for gridlock in the City.

I'm rarely down that way, as an East Yorker, but it does happen from time to time, the area really can't take any more cars without some serious re-think of how roads in the area are managed.

The leading cause of the gridlock, in my experience is 'The Allen'; specifically, that the entry to NB Allen Road is a left-hand turn off of Lawrence, that queues along the bridge
over the highway, and competes with buses, and with traffic coming off the SB Allen, and then a short block later faces the light at Marlee.

My preferred solution here would be removing The Allen; but that's a big spend and one that certainly can't be on any one developer.

Alternatively, a much different access arrangement is required, and it's unlikely the solution would be cheap {likely a new right-turn from EB Lawrence and par-clo style ramp); the only other solution I can envision
being a new access off Ranee.

I'm not pro-car and don't wish to spend more money encouraging use of 'The Allen' but more gridlock is just as foolish.

So we either to get rid of it, or make it work.

 

[DavidCapizzano]

This is like, the perfect case for cracking open neighbourhood designations. The surrounding residential areas are all mid century houses on massive lots that are slowly being developed into large 3000+ square foot houses. The lots are gigantic and could easily accommodate 2/3 townhouses or even a 6 unit multiplex comfortably. But it's forbidden, so we're forced to load density onto an already busy Lawrence. I am not pro height here as of right, but I think the city is going to have a much harder time fighting a tower here than they would have even 10 years ago.

My old Italian relatives in the area seem less muffed about towers and more concerned when an elderly neighbour gets sick or has to move because it means the people who move in next are likely to tear down and build a mega house. This area was developed in the 50s and lots were mainly purchased by immigrants who would build their own house using a kit (as my grandfather did).

 

[allengeorge]

To be clear, i'm not suggesting that building increased density should not be done on this site, or around any site close to rapid transit. The problem i'm outlining is the scale of the proposal.

Shop it down ~10 stories and that's fine. To use the subway as justification to build 40-50+ story towers everywhere without regard is just bad planning plain and simple. If we're using that as the primariy driver, let's build 40-50 story towers across Bloor-Danforth and we'll see how that goes. We've got to remember that there are times that the subway just doesnt work and the alternative routes in the area need to be taken into play. Ever try taking shuttle buses when this section of the University Line is down? It's an absolute gongshow, much worse the a Bloor-Danforth line shutdown simply because the alternative routes in the area are already clogged up.

I'm certainly more sympathetic to this statement. That said, your main concern is that building towers can overload the local transportation infrastructure (using Bloor-Danforth as an example). Surely the solution here is better transportation and neighbourhood planning as opposed to simply limiting towers? That's probably far more beneficial in the long run.

My observation is that Toronto suffers from multiple interrelated planning/transportation issues:

1. Retail has been forced onto strips or nodes.
2. These retail strips or nodes are separated by fairly large chunks of non-porous (sometimes unwalkable) residential.
3. New builds have (through a combination of lending and lax policy) poor retail setups/choices.
4. Toronto tends not to have multiple, redundant, prioritized transportation routes (i.e. separated bike lanes, bus ROWs, etc.)

The confluence of all these force people to have to travel a lot to do daily life activities. And because of (4) we don't have a lot of redundant, alternate, prioritized modes along major transportation corridors, so any issue causes people to default to using cars to compensate. Then, of course you're going to have a problem - regardless of whether you've towers or not. My take is that fixing these will leave us with a far more livable, resilient city that's able to take increased density in terms of towers, midrise, missing-middle and what have you.

 

[Johnny Au]

What's up with the NIMBYs?

There's a local shopping mall across the street, another but much larger shopping mall a few blocks to the north, a subway station a very short walk to the east, a freeway next to said subway station, and a CIBC office a very short walk to the west. Not just that, but new condos are already being planned and built along Marlee.

Edit: Thanks for the clarification. They are not NIMBYs per se.

 

[Northern Light]

What's up with the NIMBYs?

There's a local shopping mall across the street, another but much larger shopping mall a few blocks to the north, a subway station a very short walk to the east, a freeway next to said subway station, and a CIBC office a very short walk to the west. Not just that, but new condos are already being planned and built along Marlee.

What NIMBYs?

I don't see anyone in the thread suggested that a substantial building not be built here.

There are questions, however, about how to accommodate that growth within that area, based on current shortcomings with the infrastructure; and in light of the the subsequent, similar-in-scale growth this is likely to trigger.

 

[Msleylar]

https://f.tlcollect.com/fr2/320/97349/Former_North_York_Schedule_D.pdf

This could be a wrinkle until such time that Downsview is decommissioned...

 

[Northern Light]

https://f.tlcollect.com/fr2/320/97349/Former_North_York_Schedule_D.pdf

This could be a wrinkle until such time that Downsview is decommissioned...

From the above:

This would be within the Green area towards the bottom of the image, which is Lawrence Avenue West, south side, from The Allen to Dufferin.

So, a maximum height of 60.96M is prescribed under the above.

****

Edit to add: After some digging, I have a date of June 2023 for full decommissioning of the runway.

So, only 17 months til the restrictions could be repealed, in theory.