Toronto The High Park | 37.79m | 11s | North Drive | BDP Quadrangle

Also, many of the attachment images in the report aren't loading for me. Anyone else? Is there another way to get this information?
 
I think the heights are modest. The 12-storey project is right beside a TTC station. The other one is beside the retirement residences that peak at 8-storeys, so 10-storeys seems appropriate, especially because they will have a great design. Quadrangle, Cecconi Simmone and Janet Rosenberg - can't do better than that. Janet Rosenberg is also part of the rebuild in High Park.
 
design7 said:
I think the heights are modest. The 12-storey project is right beside a TTC station. The other one is beside the retirement residences that peak at 8-storeys, so 10-storeys seems appropriate, especially because they will have a great design. Quadrangle, Cecconi Simmone and Janet Rosenberg - can't do better than that. Janet Rosenberg is also part of the rebuild in High Park.
Click to expand...

I have no particular objection to these buildings but (playing devil's advocate here!), applying your logic Design7, if this development is 10-storeys the next one should be 12, and the one after that 14, and then 16 and then the 8-storey building should be re-developed as 18-storeys etc. etc. onwards and upwards without limit amen.
Isn't the role of Avenue studies and other planning exercises to stand back and look objectively at what an appropriate max. height is? I believe that I have seen avenue studies propose greater height at view terminals and intersections, but neither of these sites fit that criteria... I don't remember seeing the adjacent presence of a TTC station per se justify greater height on a particular site.

And when was great design correlated with height? Cue Adma for counter-examples here... :)
 
Area Development

I have no objection to the proposed development either AMJ. I also agree that good design has no correlation to height; however, I do see the buildings fitting in the area. One of the important things to consider is High Park Station, as well as the other stations in the immediate area, as that station will directly service these residents. I am all for public transit and when a new development can take advantage of transit proximity all the better. My two cents. :D
 
AnnetteMeetsJane said:
I have no particular objection to these buildings but (playing devil's advocate here!), applying your logic Design7, if this development is 10-storeys the next one should be 12, and the one after that 14, and then 16 and then the 8-storey building should be re-developed as 18-storeys etc. etc. onwards and upwards without limit amen.
Click to expand...

You're talking about something that would likely take decades to occur, and would probably be appropriate by that time as the city continues to expand.
 
The design looks fine to me. This is a great scale for new buildings along my main streets, especially on transit lines.
 
Development is happening all over the city and in many cases it is way over appropriate density. What is proposed here is not an egregious proposal by any means.

It is completely within an urban growth and intensity strategy from what I have read in the Provincial Policy Statement. XCJ said it right as the way people are reacting we will have skyscrapers surrounding HP in the next 5 years - ridiculous. I am the last person that wants to see 30 storey buildings; this is not what is proposed. There will continue to be future development without a doubt. As long as there are sustainable objectives and efficient forms of development focused on transit I am all for it. My two cents.
 
AnnetteMeetsJane said:
I have no particular objection to these buildings but (playing devil's advocate here!), applying your logic Design7, if this development is 10-storeys the next one should be 12, and the one after that 14, and then 16 and then the 8-storey building should be re-developed as 18-storeys etc. etc. onwards and upwards without limit amen.
Click to expand...

As crystal_junkie noted, this is fear mongering. It would take a long time before any developers could acquire sufficient lots for this to happen.

I don't remember seeing the adjacent presence of a TTC station per se justify greater height on a particular site.
Click to expand...

Transit stations need a critical mass of nearby users to be economically viable. Granted, this isn't a risk at High Park, but increasing density in the area is entirely consistent with the idea of maximizing the use of transit.

[edit] yikes - 91/110 units will be one bedroom or bachelor. Smells like investor bait.
 
Last edited:
N0 fear mongering here...

dosbox said:
As crystal_junkie noted, this is fear mongering. It would take a long time before any developers could acquire sufficient lots for this to happen.
Click to expand...

No - simply pointing out that Design7's logic is faulty!
There are a couple of lots in close proximity that I think will be redeveloped sooner rather than later - one in the No Frills and parking lot at Runnymede and Bloor, and the Funeral Home and parking lot further west on Bloor. As long as they keep the height down around those outlined for Avenues, the units small (i.e. no children), and the design related in some way to the area I personally have no problem with development. I don't speak for my neighbours though! :)

dosbox said:
yikes - 91/110 units will be one bedroom or bachelor. Smells like investor bait.
Click to expand...

Actually a good thing in this specific area as we could do with lots of affluent childless people to encourage the restaurants etc. but childcare has three year waiting lists and public schools are already well over-capacity - all kids in the new developments in the general area (Swansea, BWV and The Junction) are already being bussed to public schools north of St. Claire W.
 
Last edited:
AnnetteMeetsJane said:
There are a couple of lots in close proximity that I think will be redeveloped sooner rather than later - one in the No Frills and parking lot at Runnymede and Bloor, and the Funeral Home and parking lot further west on Bloor.
Click to expand...

And how many of those have plans for redevelopment? Hint: none that I'm aware of.

Actually a good thing in this specific area as we could do with lots of affluent childless people to encourage the restaurants etc. but childcare has three year waiting lists and public schools are already well over-capacity - all kids in the new developments in the general area (Swansea, BWV and The Junction) are already being bussed to public schools north of St. Claire W.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point, though I'd have thought a few more two bed units for DINK's or empty nesters looking for a quieter lifestyle than downtown would have sold well in this neighbourhood.
 
I think this article and the link sums up the scenario regarding these two developments.

“According to the website for 2114 Bloor West, the building will contain 110 residential units and 4,582 ft2 of ground level retail space while 131 units are proposed for 1990 Bloor. An organization has come together on Facebook to oppose the development at 2114 Bloor, although considering the building's neighbourhood-appropriate design, that the existing apartment complex next door is eight storeys, and the site's close proximity to High Park Station, it is unclear what they will be "saving" their neighbourhood from besides added density on a major transit hub.”

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2012/06/public-consultation-planned-condos-1990-and-2114-bloor-west
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top