Two super-tall towers proposed for a triangular Corktown site with unprecedented density (FSI 37-38). The proposal includes 1,284 units, minimal parking, and relies on a future Ontario Line station. The community consultation had no presentation and no way to submit feedback.
The proposal calls for two residential towers on a triangular site at 1-16 Sumach Street and 90 Eastern Avenue in Corktown. Block A would be 59 storeys, and Block B would be 55 storeys, with a combined 1,284 residential units and approximately 1,895 m² of non-residential space, primarily retail at grade. The proposal includes 240 parking spaces (a ratio of 0.19 spaces per unit) and 1,416 bicycle parking spaces. Block B would be entirely car-free. The combined density is approximately 37-38 FSI, with Block A at 32.5 FSI and Block B at an extraordinary 50.0 FSI. For context, typical downtown Toronto projects range from 10-15 FSI, and even major master-planned developments like The Well were approved at 9.5 FSI. The site's triangular geometry severely constrains the ability to meet Tall Building Design Guidelines for tower separation, floorplate size, sky-view factor, and wind performance. The unit mix includes a high proportion of one-bedroom units and some awkwardly shaped triangular three-bedroom units at approximately 923 square feet. Transit access currently relies on the 504 King and 501 Queen streetcars, both of which are at or near crush capacity during peak hours. The proposal's transportation study assumes high ridership from the future Ontario Line Corktown Station, located 550 metres away, which is not expected to be operational until the early 2030s. Sidewalk widths are 2.1 metres on Eastern Avenue and 1.8 metres on Old Sumach Street, both below the City's preferred 3.0-metre clearway standard for mixed-use corridors. The proposal includes no affordable housing commitment, no rental replacement requirement, and no major public realm contribution such as widened sidewalks, public space, or mid-block connections.
This proposal is extreme density on a site that can't handle it. An FSI of 37-38 is unprecedented in Toronto for a site this small and this constrained. The triangular geometry of the parcel fundamentally limits the ability to design two super-tall towers that meet basic tall building guidelines. You can't achieve proper tower separation, reasonable floorplates, or acceptable wind performance when you're cramming this much density onto a wedge-shaped lot. The revised design is bulkier and more value-engineered than earlier iterations, with less articulation at the podium and a weaker pedestrian-scale urban design.
The transportation assumptions are irresponsible. The 504 King streetcar is already at crush capacity during peak hours and weekends. The 501 Queen is nearby but indirect for many trips. The proposal assumes that 2,500 new residents will rely heavily on transit, but there's no interim mitigation strategy and no acknowledgment that the Ontario Line Corktown Station won't be operational until the early 2030s, if timelines hold. Even when the Ontario Line opens, it may not absorb the cumulative density planned for the East End by that time.
The parking ratio of 0.19 spaces per unit is being justified by the future Ontario Line and the assumption that residents will cycle year-round. Block B is entirely car-free. This is a planning fantasy. People will still own cars, and those cars will be parked on the streets in the neighbourhood.
Sidewalk widths of 2.1 metres on Eastern Avenue and 1.8 metres on Old Sumach are below the City's own standards for mixed-use corridors. There's no plan to widen them, no mid-block connections, and no meaningful public realm improvements. For a project of this scale, that's unacceptable.
There's no affordable housing, no rental replacement, no inclusionary zoning, and no community benefits. The non-residential space is minimal. The proposal offers extreme density without any public benefit to match it.
The November 6 community consultation was a disaster. There was no formal presentation, no structured agenda, and no clear way for residents to submit feedback. Large poster boards were placed on easels with City staff available for informal questions, but many attendees arrived expecting a presentation (as is typical) and left confused. There was no email address, no QR code, no written forms, and no instructions on how to comment. Older residents in particular may not be comfortable accessing detailed studies online through the City's Application Information Centre. The format felt designed to limit meaningful dialogue.
The project's own studies show significant wind and shadow impacts. This matters because the Ontario Land Tribunal has a strong track record of rejecting or heavily modifying proposals with unacceptable wind or shadow performance. Those impacts, combined with the extreme density, constrained site geometry, and lack of community benefits, make this proposal highly vulnerable at the OLT.
I would actually love to see this site developed, I know a lot of people love the cube homes there, but its a great lot for a condo project. A more appropriate approach would be one tower instead of two, or a hybrid mid-to-high-rise form, with improved tower separation, better floorplates, a stronger podium with step-backs, wider sidewalks, and community-serving uses like daycare space or flexible community rooms. That would still support growth while aligning with good planning principles and the neighbourhood's actual capacity.
