[Urban Watcher]

Really prefer a midrise. Ha.

I get the helicopter path argument if its legit . . but why 35? where did that height come from? why not 38 or 42 or 34? Everything is hot air with the city. and they really prefer mid-rise! like seriously?! such a lame position. What are the performance standards, what is the maximum allowable for this location. are there not any guidelines?

 

[Northern Light]

I get the helicopter path argument if its legit . . but why 35? where did that height come from? why not 38 or 42 or 34?

You do know that I linked the report that answers that question, right? Why not actually take the time to read the report, and then come up with something informed you can add?

Everything is hot air with the city. and they really prefer mid-rise! like seriously?! such a lame position.

Again, its in the report that I actually linked for you, so you didn't have to go looking at all. Easy peasy. PS, calling other people, including professionals that actually care about what they're doing 'lame' is lame. How about you disagree with them after you've read the background material and understand why they're saying what they're saying. They do get things wrong, I do disagree w/them at times; but I do so after understanding why they wanted to do 'x' so we can have an informed exchange of views.

What are the performance standards, what is the maximum allowable for this location. are there not any guidelines?

As per the report I noted above............the area is subject to the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan (YESP) which modelled out the entire area some time ago, and came up with height range for this and other nearby sites of 20-35s, if the site could otherwise accommodate a tall building.

That latter point is in dispute here, as I noted, as the report discusses.

But the City's take is that IF, one could justify a tall building here, then it ought to come in under the maximum proposed in the Secondary Plan.

You can disagree with the Secondary Plan (though you should read the entire thing first); but its sound logic to say that a development in an area regulated by a Secondary Plan should comply with same.

 

[Northern Light]

This one now has an OPA application to redesignate the site in the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan¿s (YESP) Map 23-3: Midtown Transit Station Areas from Secondary Zone to Station Area Core.

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

No significant changes (height/units/parking)

 

[AlbertC]

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.

toronto.webex.com

1802 Bayview Avenue - Virtual Community Consultation Meeting​

Wednesday, May 1, 2024 6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
(UTC-04:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Register for webinar
If you want to attend, register now. When your registration is approved, you'll receive an invitation to join the webinar.

Host
Stacey Bien-Aime

Agenda
The City of Toronto Planning Division has received an application to amend the City of Toronto Official Plan, more specifically the Yonge-Eglinton Secondary Plan to re-designate the site from ‘Secondary Zone’ to ‘Station Area Core’ on Map 21-3. An associated Zoning By-Law Amendment application was previously submitted, and a Community Consultation Meeting for the Zoning By-Law Amendment was held on October 17, 2023.

The development proposal is for a 46-storey (156 metres to top of mechanical penthouse) residential building with 384 square metres of retail at grade along Bayview Avenue. In total, 419 residential units are proposed for a gross floor area of 28,959 square metres, with a density of 20.5 times the site area. Also proposed are 44 parking spaces within two levels of underground parking.

Join us at the Virtual Community Consultation Meeting to participate in discussions on the application and have your say.

 

[Northern Light]

Refusal Report to the next meeting of NYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-245828.pdf

Lots of small issues here, but the big ones come down to:

The site may not be appropriate to a tall building.

Servicing capacity uncertainty.

Most of the rest is resolvable.

 

[Dense]

OLT CMC held on Oct 16

Not sure what this addition of 7-11 Glenavy is implying

 

[1Ć0]

Looks like they got 46 storeys - https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/OLT-23-000996-MAR-19-2025.PDF

Very interesting read and decision

 

[Midtown Hank]

I read the decision and have to wonder just how poorly the city presented their arguments. I walk by this site regularly and while I agree the site would be better served with residential (as opposed to the exiting car wash), IMO the density awarded here is very out of context. What I find interesting is the Station Core Area and the Secondary Zone was established just a few years ago and now it appears to be expanding. This surely sets a precedent. Now lets see if they come back in a year for a minor variance - maybe 50+.

 

[GenerationLee]

Wow. That's wild, and sets quite a precedent. I never would've thought something this big would be approved along Bayview here. I have to wonder what the parking make up is, as traffic is not the greatest around here due to there being so many services nearby, (nevermind Sunnybrook being up the street, alongside York Uni and other hospital care centres).

EDIT: Oh, and 55-75 Brownlow was approved? I didn't realize that.

 

[Tuscani01]

I read the decision and have to wonder just how poorly the city presented their arguments. I walk by this site regularly and while I agree the site would be better served with residential (as opposed to the exiting car wash), IMO the density awarded here is very out of context. What I find interesting is the Station Core Area and the Secondary Zone was established just a few years ago and now it appears to be expanding. This surely sets a precedent. Now lets see if they come back in a year for a minor variance - maybe 50+.

I don’t think people realize how much height doesn’t matter to the OLT anymore, especially in MTSA’s. The updated Provincial Planning Statement also calls for higher density around frequent transit lines and stations. Height is out of context today, but the plan is for these areas to become nodes - so the future context is what is driving these decisions.

Policies that may have been drafted a few years ago will likely need updating to stay relevant. An argument against height is going to be a losing one in these areas.

I’m more shocked about the tower separation loss, though also note that tower separation is a guideline and not official policy anywhere in the city except areas covered by the Downtown Plan. The argument on whether the site could accommodate a tower or not should’ve been the main argument here, and the guidelines that help determine whether that’s possible meant nothing here.

 

[PL1]

Tongue-in-cheek, but the first automatic car wash in Toronto doesn't rate a historical designation?

(This is an example - for me - of take photos of the car wash, and get on with building!)

 

[flonicky]

 

[GenerationLee]

I'm going to be sad to see this torn down, regardless of how inappropriate it is now that the Crosstown is...soon to be open.
It's been a landmark in the area for such a long time, and the folks there are great.