It's definitely under-scaled, which is too bad, but I find it hard to be terribly fussed about it.
Keep in mind:
- This is probably the weakest area in the designated downtown area for development, from an economic point of view. I imagine it would be very hard to make the economics pencil out here.
- The only other recent build in the area (of scale) is Vranich's race car stripes apartment block. That should tell you something...
- This is a small site, at around 525 square metres. To build anything bigger, you would need to assemble more lots, likely the one to the west, which is 192 Cannon East.
- Bringing 192 Cannon East into the mix would give you a site of about 1325 square metres.
- But, considering that 192 Cannon East is a light industrial usage (electric motor repair), it would not be unreasonable to expect that some sort of remediation may turn out to be necessary, which adds significant costs to the project.
- Alternatively, you could assemble more lots to the south, but you'd likely need the two duplexes to the south (73, 75, 77, and 77 1/2).
- If you were able to acquire those two duplexes, the site size would grow to about 920 square metres.
- However, by moving south into the neighbourhood, and proposing a taller building, you may run into concerns of 'compatibility' and angular planes and the like, which could very well eat into the density gained by adding those two duplexes to the site, and could negate the benefit of actually acquiring them and growing the site.
- Reading the site plan attached to the Minor Variance application, while the maximum number of storeys is listed as 30, the maximum building height is listed 15 metres. I don't have the time to verify that right now, but assuming that is accurate, any proposal over four storeys would require a lot more effort and investment to gain approval.
All things considered, I'm not surprised the built form has ended up how it has. That said, there are a few items of low hanging fruit that would make the proposal better:
- Building to lot line on the west side should be an absolute no brainer. This would modestly increase floor space, and would prevent a gap in a future Cannon street streetscape.
- IMO, building to the south lot line makes more sense than a tiny little "outdoor amenity" (read: two picnic tables) and an accessory structure for bicycle parking that could be integrated on the first floor of the building.
- I don't love the setbacks on the east or north sides either, but they're street facing, so they'd likely be more difficult to remove. They're not huge though, so they're not too terrible.
- You can just barely fit in an extra storey under the existing 15 metre limit, so that would be nice to see.
So, all in all, "meh" from my point of view. Also, if this is a rental and not a condominium, it would be easy enough to redevelop in the future.
Personally, I am much more frustrated by CityHousing planning a tiny 6 storey building at Bay and Cannon, which also has a maximum storey count of 30 (not sure the maximum height in metres). Wasting City land and assets on a small building which is 70% replacement units and not new units should be considered offensive.
Why they have not partnered with a developer to build a taller, mixed-income building that would enable more public housing units and enable hundreds of market units as well is beyond me. Especially considering the proximity to the heart of the downtown, and the continued northward march of development.
Linear Mode
