[1Ć0]

I won't get too deep in the weeds here, except to say, Ramsden Park is not under the same degree of shadowing threat for a variety of reasons. Therefore an outlier w/limited impact is of less concern.

That's fair that Ramsden isn't under the same level of threat, but Jesse Ketchum for example is - also a protected park. And they allowed a lot of shadowing on there in recent years. All I was saying is that I am seeing the City being a bit more permissive when it comes to shadowing on parks relative to a few years back. They were even pretty relaxed when it came to 45 the Esplanade shadowing on Berczy Park when compared to 75 the Esplanade, and Berczy is generally considered as the "official sacrosanct park" in the City

 

[AlexBozikovic]

Attempting to change this policy is against science, pro-climate change and won't be successful. Its therefore a distraction to suggest it; and it will do nothing but delay affordable housing.

"Science" is when planners decide that a shadow moving over a park will make it uncomfortable in September, apparently.

 

[Northern Light]

"Science" is when planners decide that a shadow moving over a park will make it uncomfortable in September, apparently.

No.

Science is the minimum hours of daylight a plant requires to survive.

Science is measuring the impact on physical comfort to the average person. (ie, is the condition one in which I will happily sit, reading a book or holding the hand of my mate for 20 minutes?)

Science is measuring whether you picnic on grass, or on mud.

It's measuring whether the trees and shrubs yield 'x' number of berries/fruits for wildlife.

It applies throughout the year, but the focus tends to be on March and September.

It's also not one shadow, it never is, it's all the other shadows cumulatively.

 

[AlbertC]

This is listed on COMN's website as "The Jasper":

The Jasper | COMN Architects

COMN Architects is an award winning design firm practicing architecture and interior design. Based in Toronto, the studio specializes in commercial and residential projects.

www.comnarchitects.com

 

[Northern Light]

Decision Report - Approval Recommended to the next meeting of TEYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-242829.pdf

* note that a holding provision is proposed pending further reports.

 

[rdaner]

Think that the fencing may be new. I Gerrard East! lol Taken 16 March.

 

[Paclo]

 

[Northern Light]

This one has now returned for SPA.

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

@Paclo

It is also taller now, at 10s.

Proponent is now identified as Dundene Homes

We must discuss unit layouts. By and large, these are some of the most spacious units we've seen in a while, and most of the units seem sensible enough in layout, but on levels 2-4 there is one very problematic corner:

Seriously though? Seriously? The corner space here begs for a the current 3 units to become 2, with a bdrm and 3 bdrm.

By holding the bed count the same, and reducing the number of kitchens, and possibly bathrooms, it should be a only a very small net hit. Offset almost entirely by fast lease up. A re-gig here also allows the 1 bdrm to grow to over 600ft2.

The loss would only 4 units out of 60, as the weird corner does not exist on the supper levels.

****

Interesting note here, no Type G loading space, on-street waste collection proposed.

@HousingNowTO will wish to note that while there is currently no affordable component here, the proponents are very much open to that.

 

[HousingNowTO]

This one has now returned for SPA.

Application Details

www.toronto.ca

@Paclo

It is also taller now, at 10s.

Proponent is now identified as Dundene Homes


View attachment 669157

View attachment 669158

View attachment 669159


We must discuss unit layouts. By and large, these are some of the most spacious units we've seen in a while, and most of the units seem sensible enough in layout, but on levels 2-4 there is one very problematic corner:

View attachment 669160

Seriously though? Seriously? The corner space here begs for a the current 3 units to become 2, with a bdrm and 3 bdrm.

By holding the bed count the same, and reducing the number of kitchens, and possibly bathrooms, it should be a only a very small net hit. Offset almost entirely by fast lease up. A re-gig here also allows the 1 bdrm to grow to over 600ft2.

The loss would only 4 units out of 60, as the weird corner does not exist on the supper levels.

****

Interesting note here, no Type G loading space, on-street waste collection proposed.

@HousingNowTO will wish to note that while there is currently no affordable component here, the proponents are very much open to that.

Good to hear.

However, unless the City & local Councillor brings them into the next-round of the "Capital Grants / Forgiveable Loans" program (*if it happens), plus the usual DC and Property-Tax Waivers -- I really don't see how they can generate many long-term "affordable rental" apartments in that smaller 60-Unit footprint building.

Here's the most-recent subsidy list that was just passed by Council this week -

PH23.5 - From Concept to Construction: Creating More Homes Across the Housing Continuum​

Agenda Item History 2025.PH23.5

Agenda Item History 2025.PH23.5

secure.toronto.ca

 

[Paclo]

Additional rendering: