Toronto 733 Mount Pleasant Road | 93.25m | 27s | Rockport Group | Wallman Architects

There's a fair amount of activity starting to build up at Mount Pleasant & Eg now. Apart from this there's also the Briton House expansion which is proposing for 25 storeys. While north of Eglinton, there's 808 Mount Pleasant which proposed 44 storeys.
 
Yes but those come in 2 of the four corners that have seen much development in the area. This one here is in the SE corner abutting onto the stable neighbourhood where development has largely strayed away from.

If this goes through, I think it has to set precedent for the western side of Taunton Rd. That is a significant change from past development patterns.
 
Front Page Article:

urbantoronto.ca

27-Storey Condo Proposed at 733 Mount Pleasant | UrbanToronto

With changes to Toronto Planning Bylaws enacted by the provincial government in 2019, the Rockport Group has replaced a proposal for a 9-storey development on Mount Pleasant Road within walking distance of a coming Crosstown LRT station with a 27-storey proposal.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
From the Report:

This site, being within the Mount Pleasant Core Character Area, is located in a block where there is the possibility of applications for significant intensification, based on the approved height range of 20 to 35 storeys in the Secondary Plan. Making a decision on this application without studying and evaluating potential proposals within the context of the surrounding block and area would be premature and could negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood, contrary to the objectives of the Official Plan.

City Planning staff have significant concerns with the proposal's height and density as it relates to transition, privacy and shadowing to the Neighbourhoods designated area to the east. As part of the approval of Midtown in Focus in July 2018, City Planning was directed by Council to initiate a zoning review for Midtown's 22 Character Areas to implement the directions of the Secondary Plan. The intent of the zoning review is to establish specific heights in the Zoning By-law as set out in Policy 5.4.3 of the Secondary Plan. It will also provide clarity on the location, scale and form of appropriate development within each Character Area and implement other policy directions within the approved Secondary Plan. Such a review, as provided for in Policy 2.3.1.4 of the Official Plan, will be used to create an area specific zoning by-law. It is to be determined whether the area specific zoning by-law will apply to the block or a broader geography. The review of this application within the context of the Midtown Zoning Review will allow for a comprehensive and informed process.

The Block Plan will be interesting, I think the City will be quite challenged here to plan for the directed MTSA growth, given the several 'hard sites' at that intersection. It may well push the density outside of core intersection as we're seeing with this application.
 
Msleylar said:
From the Report:

This site, being within the Mount Pleasant Core Character Area, is located in a block where there is the possibility of applications for significant intensification, based on the approved height range of 20 to 35 storeys in the Secondary Plan. Making a decision on this application without studying and evaluating potential proposals within the context of the surrounding block and area would be premature and could negatively impact the surrounding neighbourhood, contrary to the objectives of the Official Plan.

City Planning staff have significant concerns with the proposal's height and density as it relates to transition, privacy and shadowing to the Neighbourhoods designated area to the east. As part of the approval of Midtown in Focus in July 2018, City Planning was directed by Council to initiate a zoning review for Midtown's 22 Character Areas to implement the directions of the Secondary Plan. The intent of the zoning review is to establish specific heights in the Zoning By-law as set out in Policy 5.4.3 of the Secondary Plan. It will also provide clarity on the location, scale and form of appropriate development within each Character Area and implement other policy directions within the approved Secondary Plan. Such a review, as provided for in Policy 2.3.1.4 of the Official Plan, will be used to create an area specific zoning by-law. It is to be determined whether the area specific zoning by-law will apply to the block or a broader geography. The review of this application within the context of the Midtown Zoning Review will allow for a comprehensive and informed process.

The Block Plan will be interesting, I think the City will be quite challenged here to plan for the directed MTSA growth, given the several 'hard sites' at that intersection. It may well push the density outside of core intersection as we're seeing with this application.
Click to expand...
This City gobbledygook is BS. The application was submitted prior to any new zoning review starting let alone coming into force. It must be evaluated against the policies in force at the time of application, per the Clergy principle. If this is not moved promptly to the appropriate resolution, i.e. a positive staff report, the applicant should appeal.
 
Kenojuak said:
This City gobbledygook is BS. The application was submitted prior to any new zoning review starting let alone coming into force. It must be evaluated against the policies in force at the time of application, per the Clergy principle. If this is not moved promptly to the appropriate resolution, i.e. a positive staff report, the applicant should appeal.
Click to expand...
Changes to the Planning Act and Places to Grow/PPS overide Clergy,. It's not a forgone conclusion if it represents bad planning or was in contravention of any Secondary Plan in force at the time. Clergy isn't completely infallible at the LPAT though of course the onus will of course be on the City to make a case for any desired revisions. I would be shocked if they didnt come to a negotiated settlement in the end for this site as the heights are contemplated in the area.
 
ProjectEnd said:
'Late-to-the-game-Matlow' is shitting his pants about this:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1306406842260754432
Click to expand...
Such an amateur honestly. He projects this public image of competence and steadiness but he is actually just a whiny NIMBY who has no understanding that private development is what creates new housing. And then wastes everyone's time and money (including the City's) at LPAT, thereby also delaying and increasing the cost of said housing.
 
I can't believe I've actually seen people online petition for him to run for Mayor
 
Having spent a few years living in the area, it's interesting to see what's going on.
Personally, 27 storeys seems a bit high to me, given the main street character of Mt. Pleasant, even if 9 was a bit low given that there's a Crosstown station a block away. I mean, you can see in that cross-section how even the podium kind of looms over the nice, old shops to the south. There's already some mid-rise around there and, off the top of my head, 15-20 storeys seems reasonable.

There will be "NIMBYs" saying they shouldn't even build the 9 storeys, much less this monstrosity, and "urbanists" saying everything anywhere near a transit station should obviously be 30 storeys and how dare anyone complain given the housing crisis, yada yada yada (I've effectively seen both positions on Twitter). It would be nice if both sides had a broader sense of the actual context.

But this is the conundrum the City has created for itself. If you're going to have so much "yellowbelt," there's going to be more pressure elsewhere; everything is going to be a block or two from a nice, established neighbourhood. Mt. Pleasant does have a distinct character worth preserving and while it can/should intensify, it shouldn't be replaced by a whole bunch of these. BUT if the City isn't going to do what needs to be done, the Province ends up doing what they want instead and you end up with this. Just a frustrating situation, always.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Having spent a few years living in the area, it's interesting to see what's going on.
Personally, 27 storeys seems a bit high to me, given the main street character of Mt. Pleasant, even if 9 was a bit low given that there's a Crosstown station a block away. I mean, you can see in that cross-section how even the podium kind of looms over the nice, old shops to the south. There's already some mid-rise around there and, off the top of my head, 15-20 storeys seems reasonable.

There will be "NIMBYs" saying they shouldn't even build the 9 storeys, much less this monstrosity, and "urbanists" saying everything anywhere near a transit station should obviously be 30 storeys and how dare anyone complain given the housing crisis, yada yada yada (I've effectively seen both positions on Twitter). It would be nice if both sides had a broader sense of the actual context.

But this is the conundrum the City has created for itself. If you're going to have so much "yellowbelt," there's going to be more pressure elsewhere; everything is going to be a block or two from a nice, established neighbourhood. Mt. Pleasant does have a distinct character worth preserving and while it can/should intensify, it shouldn't be replaced by a whole bunch of these. BUT if the City isn't going to do what needs to be done, the Province ends up doing what they want instead and you end up with this. Just a frustrating situation, always.
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you've said, however I would argue that the "unique character of mount pleasant" isn't that unique at all, and it resembles literally dozens of cutesy 2-3 storey main streets found all over the city, and the province. I'd say the interaction between old, new, short and tall are what gives the area it's unique flavour, including the diversity the nearby mid century apartments provide.
 
As a long-time local resident, I am conflicted. Everything @TJ O'Pootertoot said is spot on. You can't deny this is close to Mt Pleasant station, but it is also not the most appropriate built-form for the site IMO and I'm not particularly looking forward to the development (though maybe it will block out The Eglinton from certain vantage points, which could be a good thing).

Ultimately, the fault is with the lack of vision in this city, especially from City Council and City Planning department. The Midtown Secondary Plan could have been updated years ago and approved under the Wynne administration, but they slept on it and responded with shocked pikachu face when the Ford administration overturned it. Seriously, the planning here should have begun the moment the Eglinton Crosstown was approved. The City's vision for that Secondary Plan itself was conservative, designed to placate existing homeowners, did not have regard for current provincial planning policy objectives, as well as the realities of the housing crisis in Toronto.

This is the result.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top