Toronto Camden House | 61.65m | 18s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

I’m going to take a wild guess that it will be a recycling of bowling alley “1 bedrooms” with a nice exterior and exposed concrete interior
 
Lamb on the final day before IZ:

gekko-gordongekko.gif


Source
 
Application to amend the Zoning By-law to allow a 16-storey mixed-use building with a height of 52 metres (58 metres including the mechanical penthouse), a non-residential gross floor area of 364 square metres, and a residential gross floor area of 10,625 square metres. A total of 154 residential units are proposed.
Click to expand...
 
It's essentially textbook side street residential infill done reasonably well.

As a side note, I find the conceptual future developments in these massing diagrams interesting. One of the sites will be 8-12 Camden:

8 Camden | 58.15m | 17s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

Ok for those who want to see what was there just before demolition, and whether it might have been worth saving, attached are pictures I took on Saturday while I was walking by and the buildings were fenced off and being prepped for demo.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca


3-png.365955
 
Appealed back in April, this one is the subject of an Appeal Report (formerly Request for Direction Report) to the next meeting of TEYCC:


Frankly, this is perhaps the weakest of the Appeal Reports heading to this meeting.

From the above, the only substantial objections are below:

1673886612300.png


I think this one should really get settled by the time this report arrives at Council, mostly with Planning walking backwards. I back Planning a lot for what I often see as constructive objections. This is not that. If there are any legitimate grounds to oppose the height or require further setbacks they sure need beefing up before the OLT just gives Brad what he's asking for if not two extra floors out of spite, LOL
 
Last edited:
Looking at the site context massing diagram in the post above, I really don't see why this is too tall or not contextually appropriate besides the City says the words it's too tall and not contextually appropriate. But that paragraph doesn't have any actual reasons in it — it just says it's too tall because... some vague gesturing towards policy that isn't actually a substantive discussion of reasons. How specifically is it not "contextually appropriate"? Because it looks quite contextual from that massing diagram to me. This kind of opposition without substantive justification really undermines the City's credibility to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top