Northern Light said:
Of course, its actually possible to address the concerns w/seniors, and build the proposal at a scale/form similar to what is now on the table.

The issue is obviously, primarily, one of indoor gathering space; and perhaps, some indoor walking space (though nice outdoor walks are better).

Including a replacement library, with extended hours would meet some of the gathering place function. The contemplated parks already do that outdoors.

There could, otherwise, be some additional retail as well.

Indoor walking would surely mean a Community Centre. There is one near to hear now (O'Connor) but its a very small facility. Replacement might seem reasonable.

Making outdoor walking a bit more pleasant in winter through hydronic snowmelt systems, or a small retail mews with partial canopy coverage like 'The Well' might also help.

None of that precludes building lots of new housing.
Click to expand...
Good points.

Exsisting outdoor spaces are nearby. The Meadoway is a five minute walk away and provides kilometres of walking and cycling trails (any bicycle spaces in the revised plan?) It's the year round indoor public space that is lacking. Maybe the plot of land, along Pharmacy, that doesn't belong to this developer will provide some kind of community hub. It would be the ideal place for one considering what is being proposed in the area. Isn't there a five tower development proposed for the SE corner of Pharmacy & Eglinton? Imagine a communty centre, library and pool. There's probably enough space for a small arena. Outdoor skating track? Playgrounds?
 
Bluffers416 said:
Good points.

Exsisting outdoor spaces are nearby. The Meadoway is a five minute walk away and provides kilometres of walking and cycling trails (any bicycle spaces in the revised plan?)
Click to expand...

If you mean bicycle parking for residents, lots.

The proposal also includes bike lanes on Eglinton, O'Connor and one N-S street proposed through the site.

It also suggests Bikeshare, though that would be up to the City.

Bluffers416 said:
It's the year round indoor public space that is lacking. Maybe the plot of land, along Pharmacy, that doesn't belong to this developer will provide some kind of community hub. It would be the ideal place for one considering what is being proposed in the area.
Click to expand...

It may well, we haven't seen a proposal for those lands yet.

Bluffers416 said:
Isn't there a five tower development proposed for the SE corner of Pharmacy & Eglinton? Imagine a communty centre, library and pool.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if the current iteration is five towers, w/o looking it up; but yes, there is a multi-tower proposal for the current piping plant.

Bluffers416 said:
There's probably enough space for a small arena. Outdoor skating track? Playgrounds?
Click to expand...

The tentative plans for where parks will go is laid out in the Golden Mile Masterplan.

The actual design/programming of these spaces will largely be done site to site.

The only limitation being that only 1 or 2 of the proposed parks are large enough for sports fields, so those sites will attract that programming.

But everything else, I imagine, is up in the air til the community speaks on each proposal; and at parks consultations.

There is no outdoor skating of which I am aware within 2km of this site; so that may make sense.

But it will be up there with all the other standard amenities as options, subject to budget. (playgrounds, splashpads, tennis courts etc etc.)

*****

Here's the plan for area parks (conceptual) I note above:

1624024441732.png

You'll see that this proposal differs in some respects, shifting the south park further east.
 
Northern Light said:
Thanks to @Art Tsai for the heads up..............more incoming....

From the Planning Rationale Report:

View attachment 328518

Revised Proposal below.........much improved...........the mall is gone:

The new O'Connor Drive is in the plan, along with a new N-S public street (partial), at the border with Metro's lands; and a full N-S public street mid-site.

View attachment 328521
Click to expand...
I have a question. What do all the big block numbers mean? are they basically the number of stories of the building.

Also are the existing apartments retained? Also why are they no longer including Block E from the original plan? that would have been good for them to include no?

From a previous posts it says five mixed use towers ranging from 25 to 40 storeys... but it says 50 so isn't it 50 stories and doesn't it look like more than 5 towers based on the new proposal?
 
toronto647 said:
I have a question. What do all the big block numbers mean?
Click to expand...

'Block 1' etc, written in Blue is just an identifier it helps situate portions of the site (blocks) and makes it easier to understand phasing and which property or 'block' is being discussed.

The numbers in Black within each block refers to the number of floors of individual buildings.

toronto647 said:
Also are the existing apartments retained? Also why are they no longer including Block E from the original plan? that would have been good for them to include no?
Click to expand...

They sold the apartments to another owner; in addition, the proposal had to be re-worked to allow for the new O'Connor drive and to achieve other objectives of the Golden Mile Master Plan.

These choices dictated a completely different arrangement.

toronto647 said:
From a previous posts it says five mixed use towers ranging from 25 to 40 storeys... but it says 50 so isn't it 50 stories and doesn't it look like more than 5 towers based on the new proposal?
Click to expand...

See above. The is a revised proposal. The number of buildings and the heights have both increased; note that the mall, which was retained in the original proposal is now removed.
 
Last edited:
Richard White said:
The reality is that the mall is very much dated. It was suitable in the 1950s and 1960s but once the STC opened up things went downhill fast. I can tell you from first hand experience that alot of their clientele is seniors and that the locals really do not attend there other than for Metro.

Seniors frequently go there in the morning to get coffee and socialize in the food court before it opens.

Honestly, I know it is a local landmark BUT a mall that focuses on seniors is destined for failure. You cannot focus on seniors and hope the mall will survive. The younger crowd around my age (I am 33) don't go here. The last time I was at Eglinton Square was years ago and that was because I needed something from shoppers and I was in the area.

They need something new, they need to get away from the mall your grandmother worked at when she was in High School. Back in 2005 when I was in Grade 12 English my then teacher Paul Vincent at Birchmount Park told me how he worked there in his teens back in the early 1960s.
Click to expand...
Sure it wasn't Patrick Vincent? Did he work at a cigarette factory?
 
Northern Light said:
This is the subject of a confidential Request for Direction Report to the Dec 15th meeting of City Council:

Click to expand...

This one dropped off the face of the earth, LOL

The confidential report noted above wasn't made public until July 2022; like many, I'd forgotten to check back on it by then.

But for the revival of the 100 Eglinton Square thread with an 'any news' bump.................I wouldn't have gone looking.......Ha!

So this was approved way back in December '21.

The terms can be found here:

Agenda Item History 2021.CC38.9

Agenda Item History 2021.CC38.9
secure.toronto.ca

Settlement Offer is here:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-174482.pdf (Settlement Offer)

The revised Site Plan can be found here:


From the above:

Revised Site Plan:

1706190124988.png



@Paclo is flagged to see if anything interesting changed and update the Db/title accordingly.
 
Paclo said:
Since the rezoning settlement proposal was ratified by the OLT in Aug 2022, the latest plans for the site can be found in the Draft Plan of Subdivision:
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

and the Minor Variance of Oct 2023 here:
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Total proposed residential units is now 3398.
Total vehicular parking is 83 (requested through minor variance).
Total bicycle parking is 3788.
The tallest building here is now 46-storeys / 158.8m.

View attachment 535542

Site / Phasing:
View attachment 535544
Click to expand...

First off, excellent digging Paclo!

Second, I just did a double-take on that parking number......... That is ZERO resident parking, at a suburban site. All parking is visitor related or tied to the daycare.

* Note C of A 's decision notice came on January 17th, 2024 approving the above, albeit with some conditions around a parking supply study and Transportation Demand Management.
 
Last edited:
I can see why there's capacity concerns for the Golden Mile segment of the LRT.

Currently 25,000 units are proposed. Let's assume a 0.3 parking ratio on average: that's 17,500 units, or about 31,500 people dependent on transit.

Since this area is likely to be students, young professional singles/couples, let's assume 75% of these people are working (City wide this figure is about 50%).

That's as many as 23,625 people taking the LRT. Let's be conservative and assume half of them use the LRT on any given day. Which puts us at almost 6,000 people per hour per direction during morning peak. That's about the same as the projected peak demand through the central section.
 
An Application has been filed to Lift the 'H' (holding by-law) that applies to this site.

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

The application is facilitated by the fact that the City was under an obligation to determine the final alignment of the O'Connor Drive extension and realignment by the end of 2023 under the holding provision, to ensure there was no conflict w/this proposal.

The City has failed to make such a determination.

Closing Paragraph from the Cover Letter:

1713185729600.png


There really is no excuse for this.

It may well be that other appeals in the area are making a final determination a challenge, though, if true, that ought to have been in the holding conditions imposed at OLT.

Now, I am curious though, about Kingsett's impatience here. Are they actually ready to either move a phase 1 project themselves? JV it? Or sell a portion of the site?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top