Toronto Amsterdam Towns | 17.68m | 4s | Rise | Guthrie Muscovitch

PMT

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
4,077
Reaction score
8,995
Location
Turanna
PMT said:
1455 O'CONNOR DR
Ward 19 - Tor & E.York District

http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...4504736&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false
Click to expand...

Sounds promising! Purpose-built rental, main street intensification, but in no way overbearing.

If they get the architecture right, this could be a small gem.

Hmmm, this is the old carwash site, among other things, that is immediately east of the O'Connor Bowl condo project.

I would like to see ground-floor retail here, if possible.

Screenshot_2018-12-28 1455 O'Connor Dr.jpg


Image from Google Streetview
 
PMT said:
I'm liking the sudden intensification along O'Connor.
Click to expand...
While I like that the O'Connor facing lots are receiving gentler scale, I would not be opposed to seeing something higher density as you transition further west into the employment lands.

Transit wise, it is viable. The O'Connor bus can increase in frequency to support that intensification, and act as a shuttle between Line 2 and Line 5.
 
WislaHD said:
While I like that the O'Connor facing lots are receiving gentler scale, I would not be opposed to seeing something higher density as you transition further west into the employment lands.
Click to expand...
Personally I disagree, that's exactly what starts the process of getting employment lands pushed out of any given area.
 
Amare said:
Personally I disagree, that's exactly what starts the process of getting employment lands pushed out of any given area.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but that enters a different discussion.

What is the best use of these lands given today's market climate?

O'Connor is very close to the central city, fairly adjacent to two rapid transit lines built/under construction (potentially three if we are inclined to include the Relief Line), and occupies substantial land area that isn't entrenched in the "Stable Neighbourhood" zero intensification Yellowbelt areas.

Given the housing supply crisis facing this city, something has to give somewhere. It might be fair to ask, why not O'Connor?
 
Amare said:
Personally I disagree, that's exactly what starts the process of getting employment lands pushed out of any given area.
Click to expand...

The sites discussed along O'Connor are various strip plaza, carwash and vacant land.

None were industrial or large-scale commercial employment.

All but one were on the south/east side of O'Connor and immediately adjacent to residential lands.

The one site on the north/west side was also abutting residential.

Why would one conclude that any of these would lead to a threat to employment lands?

Or at you suggesting that greater density on these sites beyond what is proposed would cause that? If so, may I ask why?

I think the proposals are mostly about right as they are with some need for refinement. I don't see that greater density would necessarily be the right choice.

But I'm also unclear on why that would create an issue w/lands within the employment district anymore than the existing proposals.
 
WislaHD said:
Agreed, but that enters a different discussion.

What is the best use of these lands given today's market climate?

O'Connor is very close to the central city, fairly adjacent to two rapid transit lines built/under construction (potentially three if we are inclined to include the Relief Line), and occupies substantial land area that isn't entrenched in the "Stable Neighbourhood" zero intensification Yellowbelt areas.

Given the housing supply crisis facing this city, something has to give somewhere. It might be fair to ask, why not O'Connor?
Click to expand...
Mixed-use mid rise (ie: 4-6 stories) would definitely be appropriate. Hulking hi-rises would just be outright questionable for the area.

Northern Light said:
The sites discussed along O'Connor are various strip plaza, carwash and vacant land.

None were industrial or large-scale commercial employment.

All but one were on the south/east side of O'Connor and immediately adjacent to residential lands.

The one site on the north/west side was also abutting residential.

Why would one conclude that any of these would lead to a threat to employment lands?

Or at you suggesting that greater density on these sites beyond what is proposed would cause that? If so, may I ask why?

I think the proposals are mostly about right as they are with some need for refinement. I don't see that greater density would necessarily be the right choice.

But I'm also unclear on why that would create an issue w/lands within the employment district anymore than the existing proposals.
Click to expand...
I was suggesting specifically that higher density development beyond what is currently proposed along O'Connor (ie: something like continuous 20 story development) would be more likely to push some employment use land out of the area for a variety of reasons. More specifically, along the northern side of O'Connor/Bermondsey in this specific vicinity. To be honest, I think this proposal (although early in the process) seems to fit the area just fine.

The one thing I'll say is that we should keep an eye out for that Mondelez plant in the area; it's aging and Mondelez hasn't seemed particularly keen on upgrading their aging plants (as evidenced with the old Mr.Christie's plant). I wouldnt be surprised if they sold the plant and attempted yet another re-zoning exercise. I'm speculating here, but it's definitely a possibility.
 
Amare said:
Mixed-use mid rise (ie: 4-6 stories) would definitely be appropriate. Hulking hi-rises would just be outright questionable for the area.


I was suggesting specifically that higher density development beyond what is currently proposed along O'Connor (ie: something like continuous 20 story development) would be more likely to push some employment use land out of the area for a variety of reasons. More specifically, along the northern side of O'Connor/Bermondsey in this specific vicinity. To be honest, I think this proposal (although early in the process) seems to fit the area just fine.

The one thing I'll say is that we should keep an eye out for that Mondelez plant in the area; it's aging and Mondelez hasn't seemed particularly keen on upgrading their aging plants (as evidenced with the old Mr.Christie's plant). I wouldnt be surprised if they sold the plant and attempted yet another re-zoning exercise. I'm speculating here, but it's definitely a possibility.
Click to expand...

Worth saying here, this plant was just expanded, literally, they finished the work in the last 12 or so months. Pretty sure this one is safe, for awhile.
 
That's a good looking streetscape, thanks to the use of geometry for three-dimensional interest and colour on the facades, as well as healthy street trees and lush landscaping.
 
Last edited:
I dunno - I think between this and ZEN, the differences in our preferences are becoming more apparent. I see a jumbled, overly-fussed, design-for-design's-sake, mess. Why all the different setbacks, materials, landscaping choices, etc.

Simplifyyyyyyy...
 
TBH, I think I prefer the fussiness in fabric buildings.

Keep the perfect minimalistic detailing for landmark 'object' structures, or for urban insertions that can contrast and play off the existing streetscape.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top