Toronto The Forest Hill 1 + 2 | ?m | 19s | Lash Group | Richmond Architects

Roundabout

Roundabout

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 23, 2007
Messages
4,223
Reaction score
1,573
500 St. Clair West, North-West corner of Bathurst and St. Clair:
http://www.theforesthill.com/

Excavation is in full swing
P1170017.jpg


Also, most of the storefronts to the west of the construction are closed.
Could be for phase 2:

P1170013.jpg
 
Thanks for the update.
They have started advertising for phase 2...it will be an improvement to that bleak stretch of street.
 
anybody have an update on the progress on this site? It seems like they've been excavating forEVER. I hear closing date is Fall 2009, does that still seem reasonable? Not too long ago it was Spring 2009. I just hope this condo doesn't get delayed further.
 
...so if they are pouring the second underground layer currently, and have another 20-odd floors to go, at a floor a week post-ground-level, fall 2009 doesn't sound completely unreasonable.

Beware though - buildings are rarely ready for closing dates set this far in advance.

42
 
great link Roundabout, didn't know there was so much available online from toronto.ca. Basically the report states that The Goldman Group will demolish 524-532 St. Clair Ave West which will be the site for Phase 2. They will use the demolition site as a construction staging ground for 500 St. Clair, thus preventing any closures to the already congested Bathurst and St. Clair intersection. I don't live downtown so don't often get a chance to visit the building site, but what is the progress now? Have they begun demolition of the Phase 2 site?

I also found a supplementary report to that first link:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-14266.pdf

And then I found another report from Jan 2008 about their proposal to only build a 3 level underground parkin garage instead of 4. The report says
The by-law requires a visitor parking supply of 17 spaces (0.1 spaces per unit) and a commercial parking supply of 8 spaces (1 space per 93 sq m). The proposed non-resident parking supply is 9 spaces, to be shared between residential visitors and commercial uses
Click to expand...
I seem to remember reading about this when the Goldman Group sent me an ammendment to my original lease, but is it just me or does that last line not make sense? How can they only supply 9 visitor spaces when the by-law requires 17? Here's the link to that report (scroll down to pg 21)
http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/cofa_tey_agenda_6feb08.pdf
 
by laws mean nothing in Toronto... developers are always getting amendments to planning guidelines such as fewer parking spaces and more height on buildings... which in the long run is not a bad thing. I think it just makes the official plan meaningless though.
 
Redroom Studios said:
by laws mean nothing in Toronto... developers are always getting amendments to planning guidelines such as fewer parking spaces and more height on buildings... which in the long run is not a bad thing. I think it just makes the official plan meaningless though.
Click to expand...

Redroom,

The Official Plan is the guiding document for all the amendments to the zoning by-laws. The Provincial Policy Statement and Places to Grow Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe are also important guiding documents. In Toronto many of the zoning by-laws that developers apply to have amended haven't been updated since the 1960s - therefore they have little basis to be considered guiding principals for new development in 2008.

The other important factor to consider is that zoning and the Official Plan are intended to be amended. Half of the Planning Act is the process for which an applicant applies to a municipality to make an Official Plan or Zoning By-law amendment. Planning and city development are not static, it's an evolutionary process.

The Official Plan is not meaningless, it is supposed to be the backbone for all decisions (although city councilors regularly ignore the OP for political reasons, which is why the OMB remains a necessary component of the planning system), however I would suggest a lot of the current zoning by-laws that haven't been updated in decades are fairly meaningless.
 
Mike, thanks for us your experienced perspective on this (in this thread as well as the other) I must admit I mearly a spectator and an often cynical one at that...

The OMB has been criticized, especially by activists and environmental groups but in general across the broad population, for supporting developers in most disputes. This is partly due to the fact that approximately 75% of judgements rendered in the past 10 years have been favourable to the developers involved and partly due to the fact that it is very difficult for ordinary citizens to get any representation in the process due to the high cost of participation in terms of dollars and time - developers typically have large budgets dedicated to lobbying and representation for such cases and treat the expenses involved as loss leaders. In particular, developments opposed by municipal councils have been approved by the OMB, fostering resentment among some residents who dislike a central, provincial-level administrative body "interfering" with local municipal issues. This resentment may be accounted for by the way in which the OMB interprets its mandate to step in "when people can't resolve their differences on community planning issues". As a result of recent amendments to the Planning Act (Ontario) the OMB is now required to have regard to the decision of local councils in determining the outcome of an appeal.
 
Hi Redroom,

Another recent change to the OMB that may prove to yield some interesting results in the future is mediation. In the past decisions were generally black and white - mediation will hopefully result in compromises and all parties going home with some level of satisfaction.

It is roundly criticized that developers win more often then they lose at the OMB. However there is good reason for this:
  • If the developer feels that they have a strong case following what they perceive to be a poor a council decision against them, then obviously they are going to appeal it to the OMB to review the evidence and make a new decision.
  • If they developer knows they don't have a particularly strong case, then they are far less likely to waste their time and money by appealing the decision of council.

Not many people make appeals knowing they are going to lose, they make an appeal if they think they think they have a strong enough case to win.
 
to add to what mike said, so many resident appeals are superficial... eg their perception of traffic, noise, height etc (although in some cases those issues are very important). Many of their arguments have no planning basis, are not consistent with local/provincial plans (or misinterpret them), and basically serve to delay the project and make things more costly for the developers (and potentially taxpayers)

On the other hand, like Mike said the developer will very likely have a valid planning reason to appeal, as he will be hiring expensive consultants and lawyers to make his case and wouldn't risk all that money if there wasn't some chance of winning.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top