Toronto Nicholas Residences | ?m | 35s | Urban Capital | Core Architects

[marsh]

St Nicholas Street - proposed condo development

We asked the developer if they would consider other plans that would preserve the original mill building and that wouldn't be a skyscraper. The developer's response was "no". The developer is not open to other alternatives.

 

[androiduk]

^ What is the maximum height you would be happy with?

 

[marsh]

What the zoning by law currently permits.

 

[Janbe]

Maybe the developer will use the section 37 agreement to fix parks in the area, and help fund a community centre.

 

[Solaris]

You would always be labeled a nimby. Work with the applicant and come to an agreement.

We asked the developer if they would consider other plans that would preserve the original mill building and that wouldn't be a skyscraper. The developer's response was "no". The developer is not open to other alternatives.

^ What is the maximum height you would be happy with?

What the zoning by law currently permits.

so this is called working with the developer ? asking them to not redevelope anything ?? did residents also ask for a park while everyone was at the table as well ???

this is just too funny ~ (and yes not NIBMY-ism)

*******
Toronto's parent Zoning By-law 738-86 dates back from 1986, which is completely out of date, not to mentioned there has been multiple intensification legislations in recent years including 2005 Provincial Policy Statement, Greenbelt Plan, new Toronto Official Plan, and Places to Grow (Growth Plan) ... which specifically identifies Toronto as a Urban Growth Centre to achieve by 2031 a minimum gross density target of 400 residents+jobs per hectare

 

[digi]

so this is called working with the developer ? asking them to not redevelope anything ??

Correct, the residents attempted to work with the developer, and the developer wouldn't work with them...where did anyone ask the developer not to develop anything?

It is funny.

 

[Solaris]

^ What is the maximum height you would be happy with?

What the zoning by law currently permits.

maybe this is more clear ??

 

[urbanvillageboy]

67 St. Nicholas

I live in a high-rise downtown with a view of high rises and love all the high rises going up downtown. But I think St. Nicholas is a charming and quite special little street worth preserving pretty much as it is or at a scale very close to where it is. I get the NIMBY's in this case.

 

[Janbe]

This are tower nearby. The is downtown Toronto. You have the one of the most dense area in the city nearby. Work with the developer and come to an agreement, that the city is changing.

 

[digi]

This are tower nearby. The is downtown Toronto. You have the one of the most dense area in the city nearby. Work with the developer and come to an agreement, that the city is changing.

Read the thread, the developer is not interested in working with the residents.

...if that's what you were saying...it's kind of hard to tell.

 

[Solaris]

I think it may be hard if not impossible for the builder to work with residents if the request is to build something that is permited by the current Zoning Bylaw

(well actually if the builder built within existing zoning limits, residents/City in fact has no way to stop such a redevelopment proposal)

 

[whatever]

The residents aren't working with the developer either, if their request is basically to only allow economically infeasible development. For what the land must have cost them there's no way they could recoup their costs if they only built a low or even a mid-rise structure.

Perhaps the residents need to instead focus on getting the best possible addition to their neighbourhood. Make sure it meets the street well, and complements the existing feel and character of the other buildings.

As a for example, knowing the street and the area, I think it would be a huge plus if they could connect the underground garage to the one across the street that belongs to that white building on St. Mary, so that the underground ramp could be shared. Or, better yet, they could share a new ramp in the new building, so that that eyesore of a ramp that currently abuts St. Nicholas could be backfilled and replaced with a nice little parkette. I'm thinking cobblestones and a nice fountain in the middle would be a great fit for the area, maybe with some formal plantings and a wrought iron fence (All of which could be obtained under a section 37 agreement)

 

[digi]

Perhaps the residents need to instead focus on getting the best possible addition to their neighbourhood.

Perhaps the developer should have done some research into the current zoning in the area.

The residents aren't working with the developer either, if their request is basically to only allow economically infeasible development.

You must be a resident, the developer, or have some other insite into this project....why not share it with the rest of us?

 

[Solaris]

Perhaps the developer should have done some research into the current zoning in the area.

any builder will certainly do their share of due diligence prior to property acquistion for redevelopment projects ... and in this case this property is located in a location adjacent to existing high density residential where Official Plan policies support intensification (designated as 'Mixed Uses Areas', which is the most flexible land use designation applied to the Downtown Core) ... no builder will ever look at a redevelopment site only based on its existing zoning, especially if the zoning is out-of-date such as this

See Toronto's Official Plan Land Use Map here: http://www.toronto.ca/planning/official_plan/pdf_chapter1-5/18_landuse_aug2007.pdf

You must be a resident, the developer, or have some other insite into this project....why not share it with the rest of us?

you must be a resident then??

reality is ... you live in the core of Toronto, redevelopment happens, and it would not be in densities offered by 2-4 storey buildings

like others have said, I agree 44 storeys at this location is over the top, but I expect the final building will be taller than existing apartments (25 storeys?) and less than 35 storeys

 

[marsh]

St Nicholas

The current by-law zoning permits 6 stories.

As for 'economically feasible development', the developer bought the land and agreed to the price they paid. No one forced them. If their argument is that they can't afford to build anything but a building 38 stories taller than what the zoning by-law currently permits - well maybe they should have thought that beforehand. In my view, it simply shows the arrogance of the developer, they simply assumed that the by-law would be amended to suit their plans.

Would we consider a building taller than 6 stories? I honestly don't know. We haven't discussed it because its not on the table.

All we want is a development that respects the history and character of the street. We are willing to work with the developer to achieve that goal, but a 44 story skyscraper that results in the destruction of a historic building does not do this.