Toronto 95 St Joseph | 134.7m | 40s | Daniels | Core Architects

WislaHD said:
This site is an excellent location to add density.

Do we think it will be catered to student population or more towards the luxury Bay Street market?
Click to expand...

With The Britt about to open, and the new 1075 Bay announced, I'd guess it'll tilt toward the luxury market, and hope it does. The more expensive, the better. Anything the development can do, to boost my $ / SF too, would be great. Well, unless hoping it does something GOOD for me is too NIMBYish.... LOL.
 
Last edited:
95 St Joseph Street – Official Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Applications
– Preliminary Report ..... https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-131648.pdf

95 st josephs.PNG
 
The history of the area is amazing, I've lived in area for over 4 years with my partner who lived here way long. The idea of a condominium (let's be real that's what it is) is heart breaking, I feel it not appropriate for that area with the homes adjacent from the development will be over shadow them. I believe a hight restriction should be kept in place, it mirrors the west side of Queens Park.
 
Last edited:
Niko Beaubien said:
The history of the area is amazing, I've lived in area for over 4 years with my partner who lived here way long. The idea of a condominium (let's be real that's what it is) is heart breaking, I feel it not appropriate for that area with the homes adjacent from the development will be over shadow them. I believe a hight restriction should be kept in place, it mirrors the west side of Queens Park.
Click to expand...

Don't take it personally. The 'angry' people just seem to want people who live downtown (seems many of them don't) to be unhappy. It doesn't matter whether you want, or don't want the project....just so long as whether it happens or not, it must happen in the worst-possible configuration for any of the neighbours who are directly affected. I have no idea why, but I've come to realize this throughout this thread.

You're right, this is a beautiful neighbourhood rich in history. And as adjacent to the University lands, and adjacent to the Church lands, and adjacent to the park land, and affecting Queen's Park as well.... one would have hoped it would either meet the current zoning, height, setback, stepback, separation, floorplate, and other restrictions provisioned by the foresight of the professional planners at the City, OR that it would not simply rise to become a series of miniscule cubby-holes built on-the-cheap. But unless it does either violate all of the protections put in place, OR it is in fact a student residence-like building.... they people here are just not happy about it.

It continues to perplex, but I've given up arguing with them.
 
Hi everyone.
I live in the building next door, so this thing would be going up right out my window. I'm renting, so it's not a huge issue.
But in your experience, does this look like something that will get approved? And if so, how long do these things usually take to get started? I'm here for another year and half or so, hoping I get to avoid the construction phase.
Thanks for any responses.
(btw, my opinion is that the current building should be preserved, even if the construction starts long after I'm gone)
 
Bombadil said:
Hi everyone.
I live in the building next door, so this thing would be going up right out my window. I'm renting, so it's not a huge issue.
But in your experience, does this look like something that will get approved? And if so, how long do these things usually take to get started? I'm here for another year and half or so, hoping I get to avoid the construction phase.
Thanks for any responses.
(btw, my opinion is that the current building should be preserved, even if the construction starts long after I'm gone)
Click to expand...

Something will certainly get approved on this site, and it will most likely be significantly taller than what currently exists, but not necessarily 39 storeys.

Assuming there's no LPAT appeal (which perhaps isn't a particularly safe assumption given Bill 108 and other factors), the project must still work its way through the City's rezoning and site plan control processes (and there are many factors that affect how long those components take) and, of course, sales.

It's also of course possible that an ownership change occurs at some point, which oftentimes delays a project. All is to say, it's difficult to say with certainty how long it'll take to come to construction, but I'd be surprised if there were significant activities to that end within the next year. The best way for you to stay informed is to keep in close contact with the councillor's office (despite certain provincial politicians' protestations to the contrary, the downtown councillors are generally quite well informed and capable), and/or to keep an eye on the City's Application Information Centre.
 
I guess that doesn't sound too bad. Though I still hope against hope that it falls through.
Thanks for the great in-depth response!
 
Bombadil said:
I guess that doesn't sound too bad. Though I still hope against hope that it falls through.
Thanks for the great in-depth response!
Click to expand...
Hoping millions of dollars/thousands of working hours in investment falls through to preserve your admittedly temporary view is not the right mindset when you live in a city with a housing crisis.
 
I've already said I hold that opinion even if the construction starts long after I'm gone.
I just think the building and street should be preserved.
 
These two things aren't mutually exclusive. Preservation (although historically done poorly in Toronto) can be accomplished while intensifying a known urban growth centre. This is near, truly, three separate subway lines. It is a ripe location for added growth.
 
There will very likely be a redevelopment approved here… whether it ends up this large is still to be seen: some of the separation distances here are on the short side.

42
 
someMidTowner said:
Hoping millions of dollars/thousands of working hours in investment falls through to preserve your admittedly temporary view is not the right mindset when you live in a city with a housing crisis.
Click to expand...
hmmm i think opposition is valid, though admittedly there are plenty of other reasons than for views.I bet if this is permitted, next to go will be Kelly library, and development will keep getting pressed for right until the edge of queen's park. how sad would that be. What's there at present is an architecturally interesting building; the Basilian fathers are just trying to make a quick buck.
we have a housing crisis due to price, and due to investors buying up supply. continuing to build structures like the one proposed isn't going to solve the housing crisis.
 
ADRM said:
Something will certainly get approved on this site,
Click to expand...

How do you know this? The city’s preliminary report doesn’t exactly embrace the idea of re-zoning this property. The UT Secondary Plan does not embrace density in this location either with the old plan (which prevails) nor with the revised Secondary Plan awaiting approval.

Given that the city’ departments haven’t yet submitted their reports, and that the College is working to pedestrianize the street, and that whole architectural context issue.....how / why are you stating that it’s already a foregone conclusion that these zoning, bylaw, etc exceptions WILL be made?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top