[UT Admin]

39 Wynford Drive: a proposed 52, 41, 29 & 12-storey mixed-use development designed by Core Architects for Brookfield Residential on the southeast corner of Wynford Drive and Gervais Drive, north of Eglinton Avenue East and west of the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto's Don Mills area.

 

[AlbertC]

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

39 WYNFORD DR​

Official Plan Amendment proposes a mixed-use development with four buildings with heights of 52, 41, 29, and 12 storeys. The proposed buildings will provide residential and commercial use at grade. The buildings will provide a total of 1245 residential units, being a mix of studio, 1-bedroom, 1-bedroom + den, 2-bedroom, 2-bedroom + den and 3-bedroom. A new public street will be provided, leading to below-grade parking for the buildings. The proposed development provides a total GFA of 103,488.30 square metres and a FSI of 8.43.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Three separate small parkland dedications.. couldn't they just do one larger one between the three sites?

 

[Northern Light]

Three separate small parkland dedications.. couldn't they just do one larger one between the three sites?

They absolutely could, and should, so why aren't they?

The answer: Despite working together , these are 3 separate owners, with 3 separate parcels, who cooperated only enough to place roads through their lands in order to unlock their entitlement.

With 3 discrete owners, they each have a parkland obligation. Consolidating those would mean forsaking at least one tower on somebody's site. To do that, the other owners would have to provide compensation, plus, the City would have to formally credit each of the non-providing parcels with credit for the provision on the third site.

You would also have to mass the site completely differently with one large park, trying to provide it proper access to sun. I can pretty much tell you where it would go.....and well..... LOL

****

Yes, you're right, that's no way to plan, in fact, it's idiotic.

 

[AlexBozikovic]

This building is a (posthumous) Peter Dickinson.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Interesting. I wonder when they stuck the extra two floors on top?

 

[Northern Light]

Interesting. I wonder when they stuck the extra two floors on top?

Initial Construction was 1962

The two-storey addition was 1967.

You can find that info, here:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-260091.pdf

 

[ProjectEnd]

Initial Construction was 1962

The two-storey addition was 1967.

You can find that info, here:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-260091.pdf

Thanks. So they've got a designated building that they're going to substantially alter by removing the top two floors, then duct-taping a 52 storey tower on top? Christ this City is dumb sometimes...

 

[innsertnamehere]

They absolutely could, and should, so why aren't they?

The answer: Despite working together , these are 3 separate owners, with 3 separate parcels, who cooperated only enough to place roads through their lands in order to unlock their entitlement.

With 3 discrete owners, they each have a parkland obligation. Consolidating those would mean forsaking at least one tower on somebody's site. To do that, the other owners would have to provide compensation, plus, the City would have to formally credit each of the non-providing parcels with credit for the provision on the third site.

You would also have to mass the site completely differently with one large park, trying to provide it proper access to sun. I can pretty much tell you where it would go.....and well..... LOL

****

Yes, you're right, that's no way to plan, in fact, it's idiotic.

these sites are big enough you could easily shift GFA around to avoid density loss and get a single parkland dedication. The landowners are already cooperating to the extent to provide a shared road.. Just do the park too!