Toronto Montaje Condos | 54m | 14s | iKore | HCA

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
33,404
Reaction score
95,403
Location
Toronto/EY
New app in the AIC for both Zoning and SPA for this site.

Current use is : Weston Road Pentecostal Church

No description as yet.

1651137797800.png



Streetview:

1651137856495.png


Aerial Pic:

1651137994626.png


* as one can see, this large property actually encompasses a good chunk of the Emery Creek Ravine lands. Those properties within or below 10M of stable top of bank will not be developable and will likely
be surrendered to the TRCA as part of any proposal here.

Notwithstanding that, the gross site area is ~1.3ha/3.2 acres

The real developable area, in my estimation, is slightly under 1/2 of the site, which is still a very large .56ha/1.5 acres.

Lowrise apartments can be found to the south, and SFH across the street.
 
This is no longer showing up on the city AIC website, I guess they took it off

The AIC is missing lots of applications! They all vanished a couple of days ago.............

I assume there was software update or some such thing..........

I have informed the City of the issue.
 
* Docs are Up *

Proponent: Diore Developments

Architect: HCA

Height: 17s

1658342928016.png


1658343049600.png



Hmmm, significant parking located in the above-grade levels of the building!


1658343090925.png

1658343135104.png

1658343172367.png

1658343212494.png


From the Planning Justification Report:

On the issue of the parking:

1658343305780.png


Onto the Natural Heritage bit, given the site location:

1658343804255.png


The essence here is this, the built-form will stay outside the TRCA floodplain and dripline stakes.

43 trees likely to be removed, mostly scrub and 42 non-native Manitoba Maple and Siberian Elm.

88 trees will be planted in their place.
 
Their "parking solution" is pretty hilarious... and will be added to our "Parking -OR- People... Pick ONE" data visuals...

1660356294137.png
 
Their "parking solution" is pretty hilarious... and will be added to our "Parking -OR- People... Pick ONE" data visuals...

View attachment 419990

Giving them a hard time is good...........stifling the current version of the proposal is better.

We agree this is a terrible plan for this site in its current form...........

Lets get it re-worked.

They will want parking, fine, can we cut the ratio by 1/2 for a start? What do we need to do to enhance other transportation options in the area to make that workable
from a market perspective?

Let's talk carsharing, let's talk Bikeshare Toronto, let's talk about 'enhanced' transit stops (heated shelters in winter, outdoor seating in summer etc etc.)

We can get this improved, substantially. Let's not just use them as an example of bad planning; but an example of how we can improve bad planning!
 
This one is the subject of a Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of EYCC.


It has had a hair cut from 17s to 14/15 (the latter is MPH and Amenity)

The above ground parking remains:

1704725597360.png


Though, as noted above, its appearance has been mitigated.

1704725668254.png


Lots of architectural tweaks here, there were new Arch. Submissions in October '23, October again, December '23 and January '24

@Paclo is duly flagged.
 
This one is the subject of a Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of EYCC.


It has had a hair cut from 17s to 14/15 (the latter is MPH and Amenity)

The above ground parking remains:

View attachment 531996

Though, as noted above, its appearance has been mitigated.

View attachment 531997

Lots of architectural tweaks here, there were new Arch. Submissions in October '23, October again, December '23 and January '24

@Paclo is duly flagged.
So overall parking numbers are also reduced by a smidge (with the church still retaining access to 41 of those spots), so less then 1 parking spot per unit. The language in the report "The applicant worked closely with city staff" appears to indicate a constructive approach to resolving issues raised by the city and moving the project forward. It's an interesting site to begin with and lots of units will enjoy some lovely site lines.
 
There is a sign on site, this is being marketed as "Montaje Condos"
 
Not liking the material palate on the higher floors at all.
It was approved at the Feb 6-7 City Council meeting, so we'll see sometime in the future how closely the rendering matches the final product!

42
 

Back
Top