89-97 Beechwood | 21m | 6f | Approved

[TransitZilla]

Agreed- on a main street there should be ground floor retail space.

The only other thing that maybe could be acceptable is if the ground floor units are built with their main entrances leading outside to the street (which usually works best when the units are 2-storey townhomes). As shown above, this will just create a huge length of blank wall.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Agreed- on a main street there should be ground floor retail space.

The only other thing that maybe could be acceptable is if the ground floor units are built with their main entrances leading outside to the street (which usually works best when the units are 2-storey townhomes). As shown above, this will just create a huge length of blank wall.

Having the residential entrances on the street, and maybe a small terrace for each unit, would be helpful I agree.

Does the City not have rules about retail along main streets? Could someone construct a building with no street-front retail along Richmond in Westboro or Bank in the Glebe?

[passwordisnt123]

Dumbest shit ever. Why would they remove active frontage on Beechwood? Hopefully the city plays hardball with them.

[HrDm180]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Having the residential entrances on the street, and maybe a small terrace for each unit, would be helpful I agree.

Does the City not have rules about retail along main streets? Could someone construct a building with no street-front retail along Richmond in Westboro or Bank in the Glebe?

Single-use buildings are permitted along TMs, in other words, street-level commercial is not required. The commercial component in a mixed-use project has a significant impact on the pro forma...a plus if it works and a negative if it doesn't. Considering the broad decline in bricks and mortar retail in recent years, and now the uncertainty brought on by Covid-19, the developer is simply limiting his exposure to market risk. Not ideal, but certainly an improvement over the existing condition.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

No retail is a no-go for me. Along Beechwood, street level retail should to all the way up to Putman at the very least.

Agreed. This proposal kills street frontage on Beechwood without retail.

[gjhall]

I guess they are predicting the demise of retail - I don't agree, but even if they're right, this isn't an OK solution for sure, to echo others.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by HrDm180

Single-use buildings are permitted along TMs, in other words, street-level commercial is not required. The commercial component in a mixed-use project has a significant impact on the pro forma...a plus if it works and a negative if it doesn't. Considering the broad decline in bricks and mortar retail in recent years, and now the uncertainty brought on by Covid-19, the developer is simply limiting his exposure to market risk. Not ideal, but certainly an improvement over the existing condition.

I actually don't agree it would be an improvement. At least the existing condition has landscaping which provides some visual interest. A sterile blank wall is worse.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I actually don't agree it would be an improvement. At least the existing condition has landscaping which provides some visual interest. A sterile blank wall is worse.

At the moment, the site is an abandoned parking lot and bank building. There are a few shrubs in front of both.

[Mille Sabords]

Absolutely not acceptable. There HAS to be retail space on this ground floor. If not 100% of the frontage, then a blend of retail and active frontage residences that can be live-works.

[Skipper]

Originally Posted by rocketphish

Resubmission:

In 2014, Claridge Homes submitted Site Plan Control and Zoning By-law Amendment applications to permit the construction of a six-storey mixed-use building with commercial space at grade and 67 residential units above. The original proposal had three levels of underground parking with 23 spaces for the commercial portion, 66 spaces for the residential portion, and 11 visitor spaces. The Zoning By-law Amendment was passed by City Council on May 3, 2016 and came into effect May 24, 2016. The Site Plan Control application was put on hold and Claridge Homes would now like to move forward with finalizing the Site Plan Control application for the six-storey building with some minor revisions and adjustments.

The changes to the original proposal include the removal of the ground floor commercial space, which has been replaced by 13 residential units, one of which is a Live/Work unit. The parking garage now has two levels of underground parking with 71 spaces. An additional two bicycle parking spaces are also being provided. The overall floorplate of the building has not changed other than some revisions to the balconies.

Architect: NEUF Architects

Knowing that Crapridge never builds anything as good as its renderings show, I hate to think what this project will look like when completed. It’s unfortunate to see such a mediocre looking project planned in New Edinburg where Modbox, Minto and Domicile have built impressive projects.

[gjhall]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

At the moment, the site is an abandoned parking lot and bank building. There are a few shrubs in front of both.

Right, which are easily removed - hence a development proposal. Unlike a 6-storey building that would be around indefinitely - the way this proposal works and looks is far more important than the current, temporary condition. Hence why an inappropriate ground floor use like residential on a main street is not an improvement.

[michaelofarrell]

I can't believe the two old houses will remain on the corner. It looks weird. The building itself looks great but I agree with other above that the ground floor needs retail space.

[kwoldtimer]

I like the quirkiness. The corner house is quite charming (and offers the block a spot for retail - I believe it used to house a tea room).

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by Mille Sabords

Absolutely not acceptable. There HAS to be retail space on this ground floor. If not 100% of the frontage, then a blend of retail and active frontage residences that can be live-works.

Zoning doesn't require retail. They can build all residential if they want.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Zoning doesn't require retail. They can build all residential if they want.

I think that’s understood, but street-level retail would be preferred. I have no idea whether the area could support much new retail - “Beechwood Village” has always been pretty patchy compared to, say, the Glebe or Westboro. The empty shops of the Minto building down at the other end suggest maybe not.

[citizen j]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I think that’s understood, but street-level retail would be preferred. I have no idea whether the area could support much new retail - “Beechwood Village” has always been pretty patchy compared to, say, the Glebe or Westboro. The empty shops of the Minto building down at the other end suggest maybe not.

I agree. I used to live about 30m north of that (proposed) building, and was just in the neighbourhood today. The existing retail — like the new business across the street at Champlain and Beechwood — is going to need all the new potential customers it can get in the coming recession. New retail space would likely sit empty for years.

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by michaelofarrell

I can't believe the two old houses will remain on the corner. It looks weird. The building itself looks great but I agree with other above that the ground floor needs retail space.

Welcome to the forum!

[Mille Sabords]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

Zoning doesn't require retail. They can build all residential if they want.

Well that's BS

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I think that’s understood, but street-level retail would be preferred. I have no idea whether the area could support much new retail - “Beechwood Village” has always been pretty patchy compared to, say, the Glebe or Westboro. The empty shops of the Minto building down at the other end suggest maybe not.

I suspect Minto is asking for stupid high rents, like Lansdowne. That's why you have a Starbucks and BMO, but nothing else. Before the fire, that block had multiple, long-standing, highly successful small businesses.

[HrDm180]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I suspect Minto is asking for stupid high rents, like Lansdowne. That's why you have a Starbucks and BMO, but nothing else. Before the fire, that block had multiple, long-standing, highly successful small businesses.

Apparently LCBO just signed for the bulk of the remaining space with hopes of having the store open by the holidays.