64 Margaret Ave and 217/229 Victoria St N | 6 fl | U/C

[MacBerry]

Is that a "heritage" save that was required or the developer using the old structure?

New build, I think.  The original house on Margaret is long gone, no?

If not a required design save, It is a strange, or dare I say ugly design connection of  a six-plex to a new design. Most of VIVE designs on their site seem to be older, renovated building connections tacked onto new builds.

[panamaniac]

Just checked the start of this thread - the Margaret Ave site was the location of a Breithaupt mansion that was torn down in 2003. The Margaret Ave frontage is part of the heritage district, but the four properties on the Victoria St frontage are not.

[Viewfromthe42]

The building on Margaret is a fauxchitecture building, meant to evoke heritage stylings. Its inclusion in the project would have very large financial costs to the developers, as do its setbacks and the overall height, hence why you don't see any affordable housing, good design, or good materials or other public benefits in this plan; the plan is largely designed to suit the theoretical tastes of a few neighbours (I say theoretical because while fauxchitecture sounds good to many, when they actually see it, they can also realize that it just isn't what they were being sold, because you can't be sold that. See the Fairview Park Mall redevelopment and tell me when it's built that the designs, the fake water tower, really set a great design standard).

[Spokes]

That's truly unfortunate. Those kind of buildings almost never fit in the way people expect them to.

Did the neighbourhood push for this to be included?

[Viewfromthe42]

IIRC the neighbourhood definitely pushed for the Victoria portion to be lower and with more setback, and I believe they pushed aggressively for the Margaret portion to have design (both massing and style) to "match" the eclectic mix of housing in the neighbourhood, hence the fauxchitecture.

[panamaniac]

Correct. If you look at the original render, the "faux" section was considerably more interesting. As usual, the developer has dumbed it down. I don't think the City ever asked for the inclusion of any affordable units, although I imagine the building will be mid-range rather than high-end.

[Spokes]

Correct.   If you look at the original render, the "faux" section was considerably more interesting.  As usual, the developer has dumbed it down.  I don't think the City ever asked for the inclusion of any affordable units, although I imagine the building will be mid-range rather than high-end.

I'm curious to see how this plays out.  It's an interesting part of town.  The Civic District is super nice, but that stretch of Victoria is less so.

[tomh009]

Demolition permits now issued, but not construction permits yet.

[Spokes]

Any idea how that works for the development fee exemptions?

[tomh009]

Any idea how that works for the development fee exemptions?

I don't know this, but the development fees are based on the number of units, and foundations have no units. So I think the development fees apply when you get a building permit for the building itself -- and in this case getting the permit before the end of February is key.

[panamaniac]

This project falls outside the area to which the Downtown exemption applies, no?

[Spokes]

Oh yes, I think you're right. So it doesn't matter

[GtwoK]

Demolition fencing is up for this now

[white_brian]

The houses on Victoria are down and the fencing has been removed

[Spokes]

Does the fencing coming down not indicate that construction isn't close?