Toronto Bianca Condos | 37.79m | 9s | Tridel | Teeple Architects

ProjectEnd

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
15,394
Reaction score
43,619
I've heard from several sources that in addition to the Galleria Mall at Dufferin, Freed has picked up a few properties on Dupont just east of Bathurst. Given that these are the largest buildings / properties on this stretch and that Wing's has relocated to 50 Torlake Crescent in South Etobicoke, I would think that these are the buildings in question.

It could be all or part of the assembly between Albany and Howland on Dupont.

Can anyone confirm?
 
275 ALBANY AVE
Ward 20 - Tor & E.York District

►View All Properties


Application for official plan amendment and rezoning in order to permit the redevelopment of the Site for a 12-storey mixeduse development comprising approximately 296 condominium apartments and 2301 square metres of grade related retail space.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys 12 # of Units 296
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
OPA & Rezoning 15 256733 STE 20 OZ Nov 25, 2015 Under Review
 
The architect is Martin Baron at Teeple. I think the developer is Tridel.
Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 10.39.32 AM.png


It appears that the brick building at the back would be preserved.

Here is a similar point of view:
Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 10.51.55 AM.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 10.39.32 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 10.39.32 AM.png
    941.7 KB · Views: 9,618
  • Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 10.51.55 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2016-03-23 at 10.51.55 AM.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 6,579
It's not bad but it already feels dated (I'm really getting sick of this push/pull boxiness) and overly heavy. I'm also doubtful that Tridel has the capability to pull it off with any finesse. The differences between the concept and final images / built reality at SQ come immediately to mind...
 
There are serious respiratory health issues to living this close (within 50 ft) to the train tracks due to toxic particles. I'm guessing that would cover about the back half of this development.

Is there OMB precedence to reverse employment land designation? The city is right to maintain these lands (and all the rest on the northside of Dupont) as employment lands.
 
While the City's push to maintain employment lands in urban spaces is theoretically noble, in reality what manufacturer is going to move in here? Rent is more expensive and regulations on use, ease of access and operational hours are stricter than in comparable spaces further out.

We're not the same city we were 50, even 30, years ago. Manufacturing and industrial uses have moved further afield and increasing globalization has put that effect into overdrive. Retaining an anachronistic zoning designation with the misguided hope that someone will magically return to restart the ovens, especially in an environment where demand for other uses consistently outstrips supply, is both frustrating and bone headed.
 
I understand globalization. It doesn't need to be manufacturing/industrial here. But it should remain employment. What would be the best zoning here? You can't wish away the rail tracks.

Also, to reiterate: putting more housing along here with windows & balconies facing the tracks is bad policy due to its cause of health issues.
 
Howland and Dupont on the east side of this site is a great little corner full of potential, sporting two sets of pioneering businesses in Fanny Chadwick's on the southwest corner, and Anthony Rose's Fat Pasha and Schmaltz Appetizing on the northeast corner.

This redevelopment would close the gap between the increasingly hip and urban retail strip to the east and Bathurst Street. It is a five minute walk from Dupont Station, making it an excellent candidate for intensification. Ground floor retail is a must.

Right now the facade is a brick wall and chain link fence at ground level - not at all friendly to pedestrians. This development represents a significant improvement.

I'm not sure office or other employment development (other than retail) is really the best use of these lands. I think residential makes a lot of sense, with tons of demand for more units in the area.
 
greenleaf said:
There are serious respiratory health issues to living this close (within 50 ft) to the train tracks due to toxic particles. I'm guessing that would cover about the back half of this development.

Is there OMB precedence to reverse employment land designation? The city is right to maintain these lands (and all the rest on the northside of Dupont) as employment lands.
Click to expand...

with thanks to UT for detailing this (and noting this particular development is 21m from the railway): http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2016/03/dupont-street-prepares-wave-redevelopment

"Most importantly, new developments must be built with a 30-metre horizontal setback from the Canadian Pacific Railway corridor to the north, with no high-occupancy uses—such as residences and offices—permitted within that safety zone. Non-sensitive uses such as retail spaces are however allowed to operate closer to the tracks, should a report submitted by the developer prove that a safe alternative to the setback was found."
 
P.27 and 28 of this document have some good info on the setback requirements. It's important to remember however that the setback is primarily for crash safety, not air quality. Hence, with an approved crash wall, you can build within that zone (eg. Backstage, Market Wharf, St. Lawrence neighbourhood, Cityplace, etc.)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top