[ADRM]

I think the case is there to transition this into MTSA type density, but once you open this can of worms, I think you have to at least look at the entire block bounded by the tracks, Duplex and Hillsdale.

It may also suggest opening up anything east of Duplex to the south.

That then impacts on the idea of decking over the open cut as parkland (shadows will come into play if you go further south).

If one goes no further south than Hillsdale (or stops at any logical point, Planning will want some transitional scale at the south and west extremes.)

Honestly I think this is one of the most interesting land use questions in the city right now: Where do more or less height-unlimited (or at least tower permissive) MTSAs start and stop? Obviously, I can read a radius on a map, but that doesn't actually tell you a ton in terms of how it's practically playing out across MTSAs.

Setting aside, call it, political considerations, why are SFH assembly tower heights in, say, the Eglinton West/Lawrence West MTSAs popping off, but we've seen nearly none of that in more or less the exact same MTSA context in Rosedale? That's an obvious example, but you can think of a number of other areas where the same question could be asked Annex, Seaton Village, Baldwin Village, Bloor West Village, Yorkville, Danforth, etc. St. James Town and the $10-25M homes in Rosedale are in the same MTSA. (The Glencairn/Marlee ones are actually especially good provers-of-the-point because they're actually in between two MTSAs.)

You ask the City off the record, and they admit it's all vibes; you ask partners at Bousfields/USI/SvN/Goldberg/etc. and you'll get different answers/more vibes. Funny and interesting environment/point of time we're in.

 

[interchange42]

Setting aside, call it, political considerations, why are SFH assembly tower heights in, say, the Eglinton West/Lawrence West MTSAs popping off, but we've seen nearly none of that in more or less the exact same MTSA context in Rosedale?

Actually...

Yonge Street Resubmission in Rosedale Bounces Height to 35 Storeys | UrbanToronto

Zinc Developments and ProWinko have submitted a revised application for 1087 Yonge Street in Toronto, replacing a previously approved 15-storey design with a 35-storey tower designed by architects—Alliance. Positioned between Summerhill and Rosedale stations, the proposal would bring 235 new...

urbantoronto.ca

1087 Yonge | UrbanToronto

1087 Yonge, Toronto by 1, architects—Alliance

urbantoronto.ca

1087 Yonge | 120.1m | 35s | Zinc Developments | a—A

The Sleep Country + Running Room at 1087-1091 Yonge sold to Zinc for $11m earlier this fall. No word on plans yet.

urbantoronto.ca

42

 

[ADRM]

Actually...

Yonge Street Resubmission in Rosedale Bounces Height to 35 Storeys | UrbanToronto

Zinc Developments and ProWinko have submitted a revised application for 1087 Yonge Street in Toronto, replacing a previously approved 15-storey design with a 35-storey tower designed by architects—Alliance. Positioned between Summerhill and Rosedale stations, the proposal would bring 235 new...

urbantoronto.ca

1087 Yonge | UrbanToronto

1087 Yonge, Toronto by 1, architects—Alliance

urbantoronto.ca

1087 Yonge | 120.1m | 35s | Zinc Developments | a—A

The Sleep Country + Running Room at 1087-1091 Yonge sold to Zinc for $11m earlier this fall. No word on plans yet.

urbantoronto.ca

42

That's actually sort of still my point -- on Yonge, the question has effectively already been settled, even through Rosedale and Summerhill. On, say, Dale Ave., or Elm Ave., or Maple Ave., not so much!

 

[ardwold1]

From the above:

View attachment 668366





View attachment 668369

241 Yonge's destitute cousin.

 

[mferna]

A 49-storey condo tower has been proposed on Berwick Avenue, near Eglinton station in Midtown Toronto. https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2025/07/49-storey-condo-proposed-berwick-near-eglinton-station.59063

 

[Midtown Hank]

I see absolutely no reason to approve this. The developers have zero interest in building in this environment. Time to stop approving anything and everything and start forcing these folks that have approval to build in a reasonable timeframe. Maybe reduce density 5% for every year of slippage.

 

[ProjectEnd]

I see absolutely no reason to approve this. The developers have zero interest in building in this environment. Time to stop approving anything and everything and start forcing these folks that have approval to build in a reasonable timeframe. Maybe reduce density 5% for every year of slippage.

I get where you're coming from but the legal framework of our planning system only works with carrots. No sticks here.

Interested to hear if you have an idea of how that could pass muster though?

 

[canucks83]

I see absolutely no reason to approve this. The developers have zero interest in building in this environment. Time to stop approving anything and everything and start forcing these folks that have approval to build in a reasonable timeframe. Maybe reduce density 5% for every year of slippage.

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the issue with this one? I am no expert just a skyscraper and Toronto enthusiast

 

[Midtown Hank]

I get where you're coming from but the legal framework of our planning system only works with carrots. No sticks here.

Interested to hear if you have an idea of how that could pass muster though?

Elections & legislation.

 

[Midtown Hank]

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is the issue with this one? I am no expert just a skyscraper and Toronto enthusiast

It's actually a great question and not ignorant at all.

The issue is a developer seeks out a location to build that is zoned for 4 storeys. Planning highest & best use might suggest a 10 to 13 storey building would be more appropriate. Developers decides to shoot for the stars and applies for 40 storeys. Justifies it by saying they can't make the needed return without the high density. City and province site the housing shortage, so approve the 40 storeys. Nothing happens as cost of construction has gone through the roof, condo market in tank and rental rates are dropping. Now we have a 40 storey building approved for a site that would be more suitable for a mid rise. More and more applications get approved at unreasonable densities, but nothing new is getting built. Many of the developers have no interest in actually developing, rather the higher density just increases the value of the site, which they then try and sell on the QT.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Elections & legislation.

Elect who to pass what legislation?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I think that would be provincial currently, since our second mayor at Queen's Park would want to have something to say about that... /s

 

[Midtown Hank]

Elect who to pass what legislation?

Hard to decipher whether you're being sincere or trying to make a mockery of my comment. You would either support the election of individuals (municipal & provincial) who are sympathetic to the issue, or would lobby existing individuals to the cause. If you're asking for specific names of existing councilors or MPP's who would make the changes in a couple of months, then I don't have anyone, but that's not typically how things work - they take time and require the electorate to be sympathetic to your issue. It would require support to promote electoral candidates that agree with the issue, and even longer to draft and approve legislation with sticks (not carrots).

 

[ProjectEnd]

No mockery here.

But remember, for better or worse, a huge portion of Toronto and Southern Ontario's economy is tied up in our development industry. What's good for us is also generally good for a lot of politicians, consultants, suppliers, manufacturers, labourers, etc. Even in the nadir of 2025, everyone is still looking for new ways to skin the cat. In 2022 it was to go to CoA for ~10 extra storeys. From 2023-present day, it's a pivot to rental. Lots of this effort will be in vain, but folks are trying to make things work.

I guess what I can't get my head around is the idea that in that morass, you believe there's a contingent of Torontonians sizable enough that reducing permissions, lowering heights, and making things more restrictive will gain political support. My entire adult life I've heard the calls for "Abolish the Unelected OMB!" ad nauseum and you know what? It's not gonna happen. It's not 2003 and Anne Johnston isn't getting thrown out because Minto has ambitions to do something tall. Josh, if anything, has completely flipped on development - in a good way - since his mayoral run.

What frustrates me most is that there are still lots of Councillors who believe (disingenuously or not) that they can 'stop' development. We're so far through the looking glass on that one it's not even worth countenancing anymore. What I wish those same Councillors would do (and what the good ones, like Josh) is find ways to grant the necessary approvals, but help shape things for the better. Better architecture, better units, better landscape and public realm, more affordability. It's not always going to work - again because of the threat of the OLT - but for those looking for time savings, it absolutely can. You're simply not going to get 4 or 10 or 13 storeys on Berwick in 2025, so why shouldn't Josh use his and the St. Paul's Community's time wisely to ensure this is the best it could be?

 

[Koops65]

This is across the street from the Canada Square proposal, 45 - 65 floors tall... how could this possibly be too tall? If it is, then the Canada Square towers are too tall as well.