Toronto Juno Residences | 116.05m | 35s | Carlyle Communities | RAW Design

EmpireStateHuman said:
I am shocked this is happening again. National Rubber will do anything to prevent more residences in this area. I really hope it does get built. I feel so badly for the developer all the money they are spending on redesigning and fighting the city. The city councillors have got to be in bed with National Rubber for this not to get approved. This is unbeleivable! one factory closes and another one opens and it closes and another one opens, the area has changed and is evolving if they want the stockyards mall to survive this better be built.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you didn't read the report.
 
LOL! nope I have not read the report as of yet, but it is printed and will read it over the weekend and give my thoughts about it.

478 new residents in the area will certinaly help the stockyards but not National Rubber. This is a serious threat to National Rubber and the buildings are not tall at all, please, the usual excuse, it they were 8storeys it would still be too tall. The problem here is National Rubber is scared to death that this development will sprout more and more residents and as people join together might shut down or force National Rubber to relocate. It will happend they are only delaying the unevitable.

The area is up and coming and more and more people are flocking here, there are people living on top of industrial units and converting them into apartments so obvisiouly nobody cares about the smell of National Rubber or anything else on that report if people are moving here. People are attracted to this area for the many many many public transit options it has, 41, 89, dupont bus, 60 juntion, st.clair streetcar. Please City of Toronto excuses excuses, this area if any is a perfect example to built here not make it a mini woodbridge... sorry just ranting, it just angers me at how backwards these 1980's and 1900's old fart mantality city councillors have...
 
drum118 said:
Just because Metrolinx wants buildings to be 30m from their property line, they can't force anyone to do that in the first place.

Developers need to have warning signs posted in their sales office stating that anyone buying a property that is inside this 30m Metrolinx request are accepting the noise conditions and will not be allow to appeal the lack of noise protection or been close to the property line. Same for the smell.

All property Land Registers will contain the same warning clause so future buyers are aware of condition that exist today.

National Rubber has the right to protect itself since it been there for decades and an employment place. It want to make sure that no one come after them once they move into the area because of the smell.

Its "BUYER BE AWARE" and they need to do their homework when buying in this area. Otherwise, move on.
Click to expand...

CP was also listed in the report as one of the railroads advocating the 30m setback but yah neither can force it. it is just strongly advised. I wonder what sorts of liability issues between the railroad, developers and residents would come up in the event of a crash in the area where damage/loss of life was caused in part because of "insufficient" corridor setbacks.

Also, I imagine Metrolinx has more at stake here given their desire to possibly put in a new GO station here. They would want all the available abutting land as free as possible.

As for the issue of smell from National rubber, if the odours are in fact noxious and have negative health consequences over prolonged periods of time, could the city/OMB face liability if development was approaved through them and residents later complained despite the buyer beware.

Its like they told you to be careful because they knew the exhausts are unpleasant/unhealthy but they didn't stop you fro moving in. almost enabling your future health risks. I suppose this is matter for lawyers to one day fight over but it raises interesting questions i think about responsibility.

Regardless, BUYER BEWARE indeed. though I do take issue with access/egress from St Clair and across the parkette. In these cases the developer is clearly going against staff advisement and desires.
 
EmpireStateHuman said:
LOL! nope I have not read the report as of yet, but it is printed and will read it over the weekend and give my thoughts about it.

<snip>

sorry just ranting, it just angers me at how backwards these 1980's and 1900's old fart mantality city councillors have...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why your rant includes the local City Councillor. A planning report should not be considered evidence of how the local Councillor feels. It spells out the Planning Department's analysis of the application based on current zoning, the official plan, any other local policies, and the surrounding conditions. Recommendations are made based on that. The Councillor may choose to ask her colleagues to not follow the Planning Department's recommendations once it comes to Council. In this particular case, Councillor Nunziata certainly seemed to be in favour of this development at the last public consultation.

42
 
mrxbombastic said:
CP was also listed in the report as one of the railroads advocating the 30m setback but yah neither can force it. it is just strongly advised. I wonder what sorts of liability issues between the railroad, developers and residents would come up in the event of a crash in the area where damage/loss of life was caused in part because of "insufficient" corridor setbacks.
Click to expand...
A crash wall, such as those that have recently been built into the base of Backstage and the Southcore Financial Centre buildings, would suffice. Prepare for any eventuality and everything should be fine.
Also, I imagine Metrolinx has more at stake here given their desire to possibly put in a new GO station here. They would want all the available abutting land as free as possible.
Click to expand...
This is where I believe that Metrolinx and the adjacent landowners should be teaming up to see that they can do together. Just as we should be building over new subway and LRT stations, we should be building over and beside new GO RER stations. Metrolinx should identify just what their maximum needs are here for tracks and platforms, get a design created for the station, and then get on with allowing the adjacent landowner to build the concrete crash wall right up to the edge of that. If Metrolinx needs some of the adjacent land , then they should get on with buying what they need from the adjacent landowner, or get into bed with them and get into a joint project where the new station is built over at least partially. Let's not waste development opportunities in these locations.
As for the issue of smell from National rubber, if the odours are in fact noxious and have negative health consequences over prolonged periods of time, could the city/OMB face liability if development was approaved through them and residents later complained despite the buyer beware.

Its like they told you to be careful because they knew the exhausts are unpleasant/unhealthy but they didn't stop you fro moving in. almost enabling your future health risks. I suppose this is matter for lawyers to one day fight over but it raises interesting questions i think about responsibility.

Regardless, BUYER BEWARE indeed. though I do take issue with access/egress from St Clair and across the parkette. In these cases the developer is clearly going against staff advisement and desires.
Click to expand...
No comment from me on the National Rubber issue nor the St. Clair connection. My other comments are meant to be applied generally in our approach to building at GO RER (and other transit) stations. National Rubber I know nothing about, and that's something that's obviously going to figure into whatever deal is made ornate made in this particular case.

42
 
The developer will find a way to make the project happen. It's probably a matter of reconfiguring the buildings. This development will be a breakthrough for the Stockyards, which is a sea of big box stores with major traffic problems.
 
I agree metrolinx needs to be forward thinking here and work with the devs and delta bingo owners to make sure they are ahead if the curve here. An RER station here is a no brainer and definitely needs to happen. In a fact I think the devs would be happy to work with go. They could market that feature and sell for a higher unit price.

Personally at each crosstown station I'd like to see affordable units as a requisite part of the agreement to building rights. Likewise GO could also act as a proactive body. Purchasing land needed for their stations and then offering building rights to private developers with some affordable housing requirements.

Seems like a prime opportunity for a win win for public and private sectors.

Not sure of the legality if proactive GO as a developet but I think this should in principle be part of the plan.

Getting back to these building, I would agree the development should go forward. I don't think planning has laid out a reasonable case for industrial continuation. 1 new brewery (PS good beer) and a couple studios spaces don't really make this a vibrant industrial area. Junctions silos site is becoming a grocery store and LA fitness so if not there then I'm really not sure where else a new industrial player would have opened up here.

My hope is that NRT and it's neighboring industrial bodies do stay because they do provide good employment. But this area need a mix. And this development goes a long way to providing it.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that the CBC cites the word 'unsafe' in their article, implying some sort of potential catastrophe, yet in planning's report, the only mention of 'unsafe' comes in the context of built form and land use compatibility:

As currently proposed, this concept would not conform with the Built Form polices of the Official Plan or be in keeping with the City's Tall Building Guidelines. The conceptual proposal does not have appropriate regard for the established pattern of the existing low density area in terms of the proposed density, scale, massing and building heights. It does not fit harmoniously into the existing planned context in order to limit impacts on either the new or neighbouring uses. The proposed heights of the residential buildings, separation distances between buildings and setbacks to the rail corridor do not address potential land use compatibility issues and may create an inappropriate and unsafe living environment within the residential portion of the development.
Click to expand...

Given that all of the uses proposed in the development exist in the immediate context already (residential, commercial, light industrial), I'd be interested in a more complete explanation of what is potentially 'unsafe.'

It's unfortunate that planning is given such unearned authority by media outlets like the CBC who themselves clearly do not understand land use planning or the process by which projects are proposed and approved.
 
Stanton is currently meeting CN's mandatory 30m setback (18m on site, 12m offsite), but there are also other ways of dealing with that issue using crash walls and/or berms.
 
Unsafe IIRC in one of planning's earlier reports was with regards to the fumes from NRT Rubber plant just next door and potential for exposure of residents on upper floors to the potentially harmful fumes. Planning staff were advocating for a higher Commercial building to increase blockage from and divert the fume cloud away from residential balconies and windows and the like. Unsafe didnt have much to do with the rail corridor IIRC
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top