News   Mar 28, 2024
 41     0 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.2K     1 
News   Mar 27, 2024
 1.1K     2 

479-499 Duplex @ Montgomery REFUSED (Conservatory Group, 25s)

Mike in TO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,230
Reaction score
266
Location
Downtown Toronto
Residents face new fight against condo developer - Yonge-Eglinton

Kelly Grant, National Post
Published: Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Peter Redman, National Post

Bob Warren, a director of the Eglinton Park Residents' Association, opposes amendments to the city's Official Plan.
Some veterans of North Toronto's 2003 battle against the Minto towers at Yonge Street and Eglinton Avenue are preparing for another fight-- this time against a developer proposing a 25-storey condominium for a residential pocket northwest of the intersection.

Top of the Tree Developments Inc. has already alarmed the local councillor and some residents with an application to allow much taller buildings in a two-block area that includes 41 homes, most of which the developer does not own.

The tactic has prompted a new residents' association to ratchet up its opposition with a petition drive tomorrow.

"We think it would be a travesty to have this neighbourhood become high density," said Jordan Applebaum, a 38-year-old investment advisor who lives a block west of the proposed condo site. He is cochairman of the new Eglinton Park Residents' Assocation.

"We want a say and we want the developer to be reasonable," Mr. Applebaum said.

The area in Top of the Tree's sights is bounded by Roselawn Avenue to the north, Duplex Avenue to the west, Helendale Avenue to the south and the rear lot lines of the Yonge Street properties between Helendale and Roselawn.

The enclave is made up chiefly of single-family, semidetached and duplex homes. Toronto's Official Plan designates the area as a "neighbourhood," a stable pocket of low-rise homes with a few walk-up apartments no taller than four storeys.

Last August, Top of the Tree, a subsidiary of the Conservatory Group, applied to change the area's designation to "apartment neighbourhood." If adopted, the change would allow taller, higher-density buildings.

The developer then filed an application in December to rezone one of the blocks in the parcel, Montgomery Avenue, so it could raze 13 homes and erect a 25-storey, 307-unit condo. The developer already owns one of the homes, at 70 Montgomery, and has signed agreements to purchase the other 12 if the project wins approval, said Mark Flowers, a lawyer for the developer.

There is nothing in the Planning Act that prevents developers from applying to rezone a parcel of land out from under its owners.

In this case, Mr. Flowers argues the neighbourhood northwest of Yonge and Eglinton is ripe for intensification.

He said the developer opted to seek an Official Plan amendment for the whole two-block area -- rather than the Montgomery site alone -- in the spirit of comprehensive planning. The Conservatory Group does not have more condo proposals for the area in the pipeline, he said, adding the developer is prepared to work with the community.

"We made it clear that that was the approach we would take: We would look at the blocks comprehensively as opposed to doing what many people criticize developers for doing, which is piecemeal planning," Mr. Flowers said.

Still, Karen Stintz, the councillor for Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence, fears the Official Plan change would smooth the way for enough high-rises to destabilize the area.

"She is definitely concerned with the approach that has been taken by the Conservatory Group so far," said Andrew Bodrug, the councillor's executive assistant. "She's not in support of this development, I can tell you that."

The city's planning department is reviewing the application.

In the meantime, Bob Warren, another director of the Eglinton Park Residents' Association, said he hopes the group's petition campaign will help persuade city council to oppose the plan.

The group is collecting signatures from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. tomorrow in the lobby of an apartment building at 500 Duplex Ave.
 
I'm a big fan of stable, older neighbourhoods and all but surely there is a compromise here. The other side of Yonge is an Apartment neighbourhood so why not the west side?

Also don't believe the developer when it says there are no plans for other condos. Why would they go to all this trouble to rezone those two blocks if there wasn't additional earning potential in it for them?
 
I'm a big fan of stable, older neighbourhoods and all but surely there is a compromise here. The other side of Yonge is an Apartment neighbourhood so why not the west side?

Both sides of the area in question have apartments, such as, oddly enough, the one they're collecting signatures in at 500 Duplex.
 
Still, Karen Stintz, the councillor for Ward 16 Eglinton-Lawrence, fears the Official Plan change would smooth the way for enough high-rises to destabilize the area.

How will they 'destabilize' the area? What does that mean?

Is it going to lead to some sort of insurgency or civil war?
 
Another way of looking at it is that removing the houses will stabilize the high-rise neighbourhood.



haha that was a good one.


although i'm not fully familiar with this neighbourhood, intensification of side of the street seems pretty practical since the subway is right there... just as long as the whole nabe doesn't get leveled.
 
Maybe everything within a 10 minute walk of subway stations should become urban sacrifice zones...developers rush in where NIMBYs fear to tread.
 
At the pace I walk, 10 minutes might decimate everything from Dundas West or Keele all the way north to Humberside, or south to Howard Park...
 
Thanks for that link.

I know the area well and this proposal is totally out of scale with the residential neighbourhood surrounding it (notwithstanding a few other apartment building mistakes on the street). The report rejects this proposal for all the right reasons.
 
Considering the highrises around it and the closeness to the subway I don't see what the problem is. Now I'd be opposed to seeing this on the west side of Duplex.
 
From the Globe:

RESISTING INTENSIFICATION: MONTGOMERY AVENUE
New high-rise war heats up in Yonge-Eglinton area

JOHN LORINC

Special to the Globe and Mail

May 3, 2008

It's the dirtiest word in the development business - blockbusting.

North Toronto councillor Karen Stintz is accusing a condo builder of blockbusting to win approval for a massive high-rise proposed northwest of the Yonge and Eglinton intersection.

According to Ms. Stintz and area residents, the Conservatory Group bought one house on Montgomery Avenue, a quiet residential street dominated by semis and walk-up apartments, and then approached all the other owners, offering a $30,000 cash premium in exchange for an option to buy their homes at market value early in 2009.

"They gave us an offer," confirms one resident who didn't want his name used. "We didn't accept because it wasn't high enough. I am fairly sure the north side of the street has accepted an option."

"This is absolutely blockbusting," said Ms. Stintz at the local community council. (She was first elected in 2003 by homeowners upset with what they considered overdevelopment in North Toronto.) "They don't own the land. ... They're speculating."

Mark Flowers, a lawyer for the developer, disagrees. "I'm not sure what they mean. All over the city you have developers assembling land."

At issue is a proposal, rejected earlier this month by both city planning staff and North York community council, to erect a 25-storey tower on Montgomery between Yonge and Duplex.

The Conservatory Group has taken the unusual step of asking the city to change its official plan to re-designate the little enclave as an "apartment neighbourhood."

The company is seeking to rezone Montgomery and the adjacent blocks to allow far more density and height.

Both proposals were put before city council on Tuesday and were rejected; the developer will appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Blockbusting is a contentious tactic that was common during the 1960s and 1970s, when there was extensive large-scale redevelopment in the core. Developers would entice low-income homeowners to sell, and often let the homes fall into disrepair until city council agreed to rezone those properties to allow high-rises.

The practice is no longer as common as it once was.

Significantly, the Conservatory Group's proposed high-rise is literally across the street from a 34-storey apartment tower at 500 Duplex that helped ignite a city-wide homeowner backlash when it was constructed in the early 1970s. That fight swept David Crombie into the mayor's office.

City officials say this new project could have similarly broad-ranging consequences because the developer is trying to formally alter the status of a low-rise residential community deemed to be "stable" in the official plan. "It is a line in the sand," says Chris Phibbs, Mayor David Miller's planning adviser, adding that the OMB's ruling will set a precedent. "All sorts of [developers] will be watching."

The planning staff concluded that intensification on Montgomery and adjacent blocks would destabilize the neighbourhood. The report also noted that the city does not need to approve high-density buildings on streets like Montgomery to meet long-term population growth targets.

Not so, says Mr. Flowers. He argues that such high-rises will not only help Toronto accommodate future growth, they also make sense given the development patterns and urban form of the Yonge-Eglinton area, which is designated as a growth hub in the official plan. The area, he says, is "almost an island," wedged between mid- and high-rise apartments directly to the west, south and east. High-rises are also going up on the east side of Yonge. "From a planning perspective, it makes perfect sense."

The planning report disagrees: "The proximity of the subject lands to these growth areas does not imply these lands are designated for growth."

"If this application goes through," predicts Jordan Applebaum, president of the Eglinton Park Residents Association, "that will lead to the proliferation of similar projects along Yonge and in the surrounding areas."

Indeed, another developer is waiting eagerly to see the outcome, says Ms. Stintz. Camrost Felcorp recently tore down several long-abandoned townhouses just two blocks the south. The buildings were littered with syringes and had become a fire hazard. The site is now a temporary parking lot.

Those houses had been acquired by another builder who let them deteriorate after failing to gain approval to redevelop the site, which sits at the corner of Duplex and Orchard View Boulevard. Camrost recently bought the land with an eye to building a high-rise on the property, which abuts the Northern District Library.

Ms. Stintzis worried that the homes on Montgomery may also be allowed to rot.

AoD
 
Totally inappropriate, for now at least. As much construction as there may be at Yonge and Eglinton right now, it's essentially all infill development on former towers in the park. There is still enough underused land to provide several years of development, without expanding the boundaries of the apartment neighbourhood. You don't even have to venture far to find underutilized land within the highrise zone - the northeast and southwest corners of Yonge and Eglinton itself are pretty empty.

This proposal should be flat out rejected for at least 10 years. In time though, incremental expansions of the highrise areas can be considered, and even then blockbusting by a single developer should not be allowed. The smaller the plot of land you have to work with, the better use you'll make of it.
 
Montgomery/Duplex Proposed Development

Before jumping on the bandwagon and opposing the plans to develop the Montgomery/Duplex area, I would urge local residents to take a good look at the current shabby condition of the houses on the north side of Montgomery.

These are not gracious beautiful old homes, but aged small semis which have seen better days and have no place in a modern cosmopolitan city in a part of town where sleek and gleaming towers are springing up on every corner. Let's not pass up the opportunity to replace these old structures with examples of fine modern architecture more suited to the thriving Yonge and Eglinton neighbourhood.

Let's look at the developer's rendering and at least give a fair hearing to what is being proposed. One thing is certain - these houses will soon have to go! Let's have some input into what replaces them.
 

Back
Top