How exactly does such a process work? Would such a removal of ROW come from advocacy by the local councilor? Or is it something staff determine with changing land uses like we will be seeing with this site? Or could the developer suggest it in lieu of new parkland on their land?

I know there's a ton of historical examples of this like a big chunk of Ontario Street thru St. James town,

There isn't really a formal process for a type of idea that is rarely proposed, let alone implemented.

In the context of a Planning Application, you would want to raise the idea w/the Planner on the file; but ideally, directly engage both Parks, and the local Councillor. For all intents and purposes each of these would have to sign off.

Removing public ROW that has infrastructure under it, as a road would, such as electricity, gas, water, sewer, and the telcos requires some additional discussion about how that infra would be handled (easement under new parkland, or removal/relocation.

The case to be made here is that it's adjacent to an existing public park and therefore has accretive value.

Or could the developer suggest it in lieu of new parkland on their land?

They could try that; though I think the ideal pitch here, is one that creates a functional park expansion (land you can do something with), that would likely require an on-site dedication, and then the removal of the road bed in favour of park space could be the Community Benefit.

Or it could simply be a city project, which the developer carries out on their behalf (maybe in exchange for credits against development charges).

but how common would you say it is for this to happen nowadays?

It's not. There are only a handful of sites where it makes really good sense to me; and those, so far, have not been raised as possibilities publicly, except by me.
 
Last edited:
LOL! It’s really not. It should be located where that yellow brick house is. That yellow brick house doesn’t exist, by the way.

Just to add detail to this for the room.

This application covers all the SFH on this section of Cawthra.

The image below shows the most easterly property within the application, and then some of adjacent lot to the east:

1732130230687.png


****

Amusing realization. The Block Context plans show a new public lane way on the east side of this development, on what is now an abutting property.

1732130363239.png


If this laneway existed today, and this proposal were taken seriously, vehicle access would almost certainly be off that laneway.

But it's not, because that laneway doesn't exist yet, and can only exist by taking property this applicant doesn't own.

****

Then as you note above, Alex, not only did the applicant erase the garage entrance........there is also no paved lot to the east showing either.
 
Last edited:
Multiple Tree removals are proposed, but I find these two noteworthy, (picture below) as they are in 'good' condition and are very large and currently in the front yards of the homes here:

View attachment 476465

The stated reason for removal of both is conflict with City guidelines for a 2.1M sidewalk, and root encroachment. I will simply state that neither is functionally reasonable in opinion.

Just noting that these trees are retained (with injury) in the resubmission

Screenshot 2024-11-29 at 12.10.45 AM.png
 

Resubmissions (March & May 2025) primarily addressing feedback from staff with revisions to podium massing, heritage reveal, loading space & bicycle parking among other technical changes. Proponent is also working with city staff to reimagine a section of Cawthra Square as a pedestrian entrance to Barbara Hall Park.

Updated renderings:
PLN - Renderings or Perspective Drawings - Renderings_2-12 Cawthra Square_March 14 2025-0.jpg
PLN - Renderings or Perspective Drawings - Renderings_2-12 Cawthra Square_March 14 2025-1.jpg
PLN - Renderings or Perspective Drawings - Renderings_2-12 Cawthra Square_March 14 2025-2.jpg
 
Ok....I've had a chance to muck through this one......let's highlight some positive change here...

Does everyone remember when I said this:

Comments, better, preservation/restoration of heritage facades, retention of many mature trees. Would still benefit from further refinement.

Despite falling within tall building design guidelines........the tower reads a very bulky relative to the heritage facades, there's a need to do better there. It may require smaller floor plates, but I'm not settled on that.

I still don't see a clear plan to shift a portion of the Cawthra ROW not required for vehicle access into the park. To be clear, that's not on the applicant, but makes incredibly good sense, and getting the applicant to do that work in lieu of on-site parkland dedication would simply be a judicious win-win here.

I first raised that idea in Post number 1 in this thread, illustrating it thusly:

1748463266668.png



Well.....dear readers...............someone noticed:

1748464431590.png


Let's take a look at how the relationship to the retained heritage has changed: Previous version first, new version below.

1748463855432.png
1748463946628.png


This is almost exactly in line w/my suggestion here. I'm pleased.

***

Note that some of @AlexBozikovic 's comments below were also addressed:

The design of the base looks like a student project.

Diagonal exoskeleton (why?) + oddly shaped windows with competing diagonals + weird stained glass to honour the heritage + too many materials + lots of curtain wall which will get VEd.

Diagonal exoskeleton is gone. The overhang has been pruned back just a bit as well.

Also: where is the driveway entrance in these renders?

Can't win'em all......the renders still pretend it's not there.
 

Attachments

  • 1748464142695.png
    1748464142695.png
    537.4 KB · Views: 26
It's somewhat rare to have no renderings on UT of the tower element of a pretty significant 'scraper (over 200 metres) ... when this jumped from 45 storeys to 63 storeys and is now recommended for approval.

Here's (a rather nondescript) elevation of the tower for reference from NL's link above. Wondering if whatever the rental/condo mix is... will lean more rental given the market. 🤔

cawthraSq.jpg
 
It's somewhat rare to have no renderings on UT of the tower element of a pretty significant 'scraper (over 200 metres) ... when this jumped from 45 storeys to 63 storeys and is now recommended for approval.

Here's (a rather nondescript) elevation of the tower for reference from NL's link above. Wondering if whatever the rental/condo mix is... will lean more rental given the market. 🤔

View attachment 661608
"Mix"? Mix of what? 'Units' in this purely-speculatory, paper, value-extraction, zoning exercise?
 

Back
Top