[DF416604]

Great site but the parkland dedication here is brutal - the City is likely insisting on it, as is their right. It forces the towers down to well under 700m2, which will substantially impair financial viability.

I would not be surprised if this worked better as one consolidated tower with a few of the homes dropped from the assembly, as opposed to what they are currently projecting.

 

[Tuscani01]

Great site but the parkland dedication here is brutal - the City is likely insisting on it, as is their right. It forces the towers down to well under 700m2, which will substantially impair financial viability.

I would not be surprised if this worked better as one consolidated tower with a few of the homes dropped from the assembly, as opposed to what they are currently projecting.

You can read the city’s comments in the submitted materials… the city asked the applicant to provide ‘1650 Lawton to expand the existing Lawton Parkette’

 

[Northern Light]

You can read the city’s comments in the submitted materials… the city asked the applicant to provide ‘1650 Lawton to expand the existing Lawton Parkette’

Just for clarity, the 1650 is Yonge. Though the building fronts Lawton and also has a Lawton address.

 

[jmi22]

I know the majority on this site seem to prefer tall towers, but I just don't understand why every site that is walkable to a transit station seems to be a candidate for high rise towers. To me, this site would be suitable for something in the order of maybe 20 storeys. That would still make it much taller than anything nearby and seeing as they are replacing low rise residential, it has to be profitable for the developer. I guess 40 storeys is just that much more profitable.

Displaced demand from the other 95% of land you cannot build taller than 3 stories on

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I know the majority on this site seem to prefer tall towers, but I just don't understand why every site that is walkable to a transit station seems to be a candidate for high rise towers. To me, this site would be suitable for something in the order of maybe 20 storeys. That would still make it much taller than anything nearby and seeing as they are replacing low rise residential, it has to be profitable for the developer. I guess 40 storeys is just that much more profitable.

Replace profitable here with "viable".

 

[Northern Light]

Displaced demand from the other 95% of land you cannot build taller than 3 stories on

Entirely inaccurate.

For one thing you can build 4s as-of-right in the yellowbelt now.

For another 6 storeys as-of-right on main streets.

Midrises are allowed all over the place, generally to 14s now.

It does get really tiresome to read the same misinformation put out again and again.

As someone prepared to support this proposal, I want you consider how likely it is that you're helping to elect someone who will impose a six storey height cap City wide.

You just can't keep pushing extreme and untrue narratives .

 

[christiesplits]

FoNTRA is gonna have a field day with this one.

I can appreciate concerns over local traffic, but I can't oppose high density a stone's throw from a midtown subway station.

 

[jmi22]

Entirely inaccurate.

For one thing you can build 4s as-of-right in the yellowbelt now.

For another 6 storeys as-of-right on main streets.

Midrises are allowed all over the place, generally to 14s now.

It does get really tiresome to read the same misinformation put out again and again.

As someone prepared to support this proposal, I want you consider how likely it is that you're helping to elect someone who will impose a six storey height cap City wide.

You just can't keep pushing extreme and untrue narratives .

If it's so easy to build everywhere, why is this foolish developer spending so much on the most expensive form of residential construction? Someone alert them immediately their business model has got it all wrong! All they need to do is spend half a decade fighting the CoA, and then a few more years dealing with the local councillor and then they get to build a 2500sf fourplex!

The second multiplex and midrise developments stop being a rounding error in GTA housing starts, I'll shut up about displaced demand. This single development is likely to provide more units than every single multiplex being built west of Yonge street right now. No supercilious reference to some policy passed six months is going to refute the reality of the market.

 

[Northern Light]

If it's so easy to build everywhere, why is this foolish developer spending so much on the most expensive form of residential construction? Someone alert them immediately their business model has got it all wrong! All they need to do is spend half a decade fighting the CoA, and then a few more years dealing with the local councillor and then they get to build a 2500sf fourplex!

Please read what is written.

I said this proposal makes sense as a hirise, and I support it. I also explained why. That's the key, the reasons you stated are inaccurate.

As someone developers consult with from time to time..........I think I'd know.

 

[Midtown Hank]

I said this proposal makes sense as a hirise, and I support it.

I guess where I'm coming from is what is reasonable in terms of high rise? Just looking around the area (what's there and what's coming) I thought about 20 storeys made sense. That would be considered high rise. The proposal is for 40 and you said you support it. What if it was 60 storeys - would that be OK?

 

[Northern Light]

I guess where I'm coming from is what is reasonable in terms of high rise? Just looking around the area (what's there and what's coming) I thought about 20 storeys made sense. That would be considered high rise. The proposal is for 40 and you said you support it. What if it was 60 storeys - would that be OK?

I generally prefer a midrise form for intensification for a variety of reasons, from personal taste, to shadows to evacuation time in a fire, to cost of construction.

When looking at this proposal, in respect of height, I'm looking at the area-specific precedent, approved or under construction, and for the two nearest sites, that is 44s on both.

In general one would expect to see height tail off as you get further from the subway, and the intersection, but here you have a subway yard on one side, and extant rental apartments (shorter, but mid to hirise in height)to the north.

On that basis, 43 isn't a huge reach.

Is it high'ish? Sure. But do I think it would result in something radically better for the area if it got a 10s chop? Not particularly. From that perspective, I'm prepared to be supportive here, subject to the issues I raises around parkland and affordable housing.

 

[Tyrang]

I guess where I'm coming from is what is reasonable in terms of high rise? Just looking around the area (what's there and what's coming) I thought about 20 storeys made sense. That would be considered high rise. The proposal is for 40 and you said you support it. What if it was 60 storeys - would that be OK?

I seriously just don't think comparing to the surrounding would always makes sense. Most of the surrounding in the area at the moment are low to mid-rise with a number of SFH, and ofc it feels high. But if you compared to what is being built in close proximity you have the much anticipated 1 Delisle (in construction) and St.Claire Place (Pre-construction). These are both in the 40s storeys. Once you have 1 Delisle up, 40 storeys tower is not that out of place any longer. And if you go down two blocks, at Yonge and St Claire there are a number of proposed projects that are even taller.

If we only go by conforming to area heights, most skyscrapers won't even happen to begin with. Conforming to the overall height in the area, I think has more to do with if the area have specific characteristics that should not be broken for cultural reasons, such as Old Town and Kensington Market.

IMO, area immediate around a subway station should be the best area to encourage density, again, since there are typically more infrastructure to support the population.

Maybe one day, Toronto can widely adopt the philosophy of spreading density through low-rises and multiplexes from Europe and Montreal while also building livable spaces.... one can hope.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I don't think everywhere needs 60, but 40 is not the end of the world. The city doesn't all have to be skyscrapers, but more is better

 

[AlbertC]

FoNTRA is gonna have a field day with this one.

I can appreciate concerns over local traffic, but I can't oppose high density a stone's throw from a midtown subway station.

Bring the popcorn, online community consultation meeting coming up!

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

Community Consultation for Planning Application at 59-81 Lawton Boulevard​

Thursday, May 15, 2025 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.
Register

Host​

Cameron Williamson

 

[TronnaLegacy]

I have a feeling the NIMBYs will be in full force against this one...

I attended the community consultation meeting yesterday. It was indeed chock-full of NIMBYs.