Toronto Parkdale Hub | 54.5m | 16s | CreateTO | DTAH

Library component of this project is also funded:

1610729792612.png


Together with the Parks component, this appears to have a 95M global budget 2026-2029 appears to be the construction period, based on cashflow.

This aligns w/the Parks/Rec component noted above.
 
Towered said:
Pardon my ignorance, but if it's funded in the 2021 budget, why would it only begin construction in 2026?
Click to expand...

The budget, as presented on the Operating side of the ledger is current year only, in general.

However, the Capital Budget is a 10-year plan.

This is done because of the large sums involved, the need for debt-financing, and that many projects have costs over many years (2 years of design, 3-4 years of construction not being uncommon.)

So the Capital Budget this year is for 2021-2030

The automatic change each year is that the most recent year comes off, and a new year is added on the end.

But you also see changes in cost, scope and timing for various projects.

So the fact this is now IN the plan is the key; where last year this project wasn't even listed at all.
 
Last edited:
HousingNowTO said:
Throwing some attention on the current PARKDALE HUB schmozzle by @AlexBozikovic -

https://twitter.com/x/status/1389671790214057984
Click to expand...

Not sure his take is exactly right. There should be more height here, but probably not where he's looking.

****

The building on the east side of Cowan only has ~30M of depth; that's sub-optimal for height.

The City's heritage conservation plans for that section of Queen call for a six-storey limit.

I'd be the first to argue, as I have in the east end for the site by Coxwell, that the six need only be an illusion.

But on 30M of depth (assuming no sidewalk widening); as soon as you apply even one meaningful setback the building is getting awfully small.

That side isn't particularly wide either.

****

Here, I think the key is the 'additional' property which Alex seems to ignore in his piece.

How many storeys there?

How much height there?

I'm assuming this would be to the west side of the proposed building. (the Dollarama site).

Here, the site depth is significantly greater, in the range of 50M, while the width, (including the proposed hub, but excluding the heritage portion is ~60M).

On that side of the site there really is no excuse not to as tall as the TCHC building to the south, given that a generous setback could be in place (the illusion of six storeys), but still have a very viable building.

Reference to Six Storey height limit in this article:

www.thestar.com

The city wants a six-storey height limit for Queen Street West. Does that help or hinder development there?

Toronto planners say the proposal is roughly double the heights in the area, but Toronto developer Brad Lamb says the restriction makes developing along the prominent avenue unprofitable.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

Link to Heritage Conservation District process:

 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Not sure his take is exactly right. There should be more height here, but probably not where he's looking.

****

The building on the east side of Cowan only has ~30M of depth; that's sub-optimal for height.

The City's heritage conservation plans for that section of Queen call for a six-storey limit.

I'd be the first to argue, as I have in the east end for the site by Coxwell, that the six need only be an illusion.

But on 30M of depth (assuming no sidewalk widening); as soon as you apply even one meaningful setback the building is getting awfully small.

That side isn't particularly wide either.

****

Here, I think the key is the 'additional' property which Alex seems to ignore in his piece.

How many storeys there?

How much height there?

I'm assuming this would be to the west side of the proposed building. (the Dollarama site).

Here, the site depth is significantly greater, in the range of 50M, while the width, (including the proposed hub, but excluding the heritage portion is ~60M).

On that side of the sight there really is no excuse not to as tall as the TCHC building to the south, given that a generous setback could be place (the illusion of six storeys), but still have a very viable building.

Reference to Six Storey height limit in this article:

www.thestar.com

The city wants a six-storey height limit for Queen Street West. Does that help or hinder development there?

Toronto planners say the proposal is roughly double the heights in the area, but Toronto developer Brad Lamb says the restriction makes developing along the prominent avenue unprofitable.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

Link to Heritage Conservation District process:

Click to expand...

Agreed. I used to bike by this stretch every day for a decade. I always value Alex B's opinions, but this proposal seems reasonable for the reasons you noted.
 
innsertnamehere said:
There should probably be a 20 storey building atop the existing community centre with 8 storeys lining Queen.
Click to expand...

The buildings lining Cowan on the west side are all heritage.

It appears the City imagines a facadectomy for the Queen-facing building which is only 'listed'.

I believe the other 2 were intended to be more substantially preserved as they are designated. This includes the Community Centre.


1620163665450.png
 
Personally, I think "meaningful setback" is wildly overstated on these kinds of streets. 10+ storey streetwalls are fine...and generate the kinds of floorplate that are needed to create new "Family-Sized" and Accessible units at scale.
King_Edward_Hotel_June_2009_Toronto.jpg
 
Northern Light said:
The buildings lining Cowan on the west side are all heritage.

It appears the City imagines a facadectomy for the Queen-facing building which is only 'listed'.

I believe the other 2 were intended to be more substantially preserved as they are designated. This includes the Community Centre.


View attachment 317272
Click to expand...

there is space to put a generous 10+ metre setback for the tower behind the existing buildings by rough estimate, and throw a 20 storey point tower atop the community centre.
 
innsertnamehere said:
there is space to put a generous 10+ metre setback for the tower behind the existing buildings by rough estimate, and throw a 20 storey point tower atop the community centre.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you're proposing to just keep the facade of the most southerly building, or not.

In any event, here's what I see as the developable area on the west side, excluding the Dollarama site:

1620164989363.png


That, is my best guess of what the City already doing at the north end of the site; and would then remove what I believe to be a non-heritage addition to the historic fire hall.

I do see ample room for height here.

Though, I'm not sure, when one includes the additional property, if you can get to two towers, given the need for separation distances.

Given that the City seems to want to offer roof-top outdoor recreation facilities...........

I'm open on the subject.
 
Just a thought, Parkdale has been losing existing affordable housing that exists in older buildings for many years. By the time these 62 units are built, probably hundreds of more units will be lost. They are being bought up, renovated and rented for higher rents. Would it not make more sense to use this public site for a community amenity that can be shared by all of the community and spend money investing and saving the existing housing stock around the neighbourhood.
 
Jacob Lisgar said:
Just a thought, Parkdale has been losing existing affordable housing that exists in older buildings for many years. By the time these 62 units are built, probably hundreds of more units will be lost. They are being bought up, renovated and rented for higher rents. Would it not make more sense to use this public site for a community amenity that can be shared by all of the community and spend money investing and saving the existing housing stock around the neighbourhood.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be 62 new units being built at the Parkdale Hub lands.. it could and should be 162 units or 262 units being created as net new.

The Parkdale Land Trust work is useful, but it does not scale to meet the demand. It is mostly smaller buildings under 50-units, some under 20-units --- and will (at best) maybe create a handful of net new units of Affordable-Housing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1389960484414185477
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top