Toronto HighPark Condominiums | ?m | 14s | Daniels | Diamond Schmitt

http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/l...oor-street-condo-development-focus-of-meeting

Bloor Street condo development focus of meeting

Feb 28, 2012 - 10:35 AM


Parkdale-High Park Councillor Sarah Doucette will host a community consultation meeting to discuss the condominium development proposed for 1844 Bloor St. W.

The meeting takes place Thursday, March 1 at Humberside Collegiate Institute's Lismar Hall from 7 to 8:30 p.m. It will serve to provide a status update and to initiate a consultation process. City of Toronto planning staff will outline the process, which will require the commitment of a small group of community volunteers to participate in a design working group with the developer, The Daniels Corporation.

Planning staff will outline the process by which volunteers will be selected to participate in the design working group. It is anticipated that the group will meet three evenings over the next two months.
 
Renderings from November 9, 2011 Community Consultation Meeting Presentation:

http://www.1844bloorstreetwest.com/FILES/111109_PDF Presentation.pdf


6793333626_1ea44973b7_b.jpg


6793334030_5d50b86e05_b.jpg


6939446037_d93a864810_b.jpg


6939446401_58cb43f0c7_b.jpg


6793335130_94c9ff212e_b.jpg


6793335474_46b93693cb_b.jpg
 
^^Whereas most renders try to obscure or even eliminate neighbouring buildings, I like how, in the face of neighbourhood opposition, Daniels has emphasized the big honking neighbouring apartments.
 
http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/l...oor-street-condo-development-focus-of-meeting

Bloor Street condo development focus of meeting

Feb 28, 2012 - 10:35 AM

Parkdale-High Park Councillor Sarah Doucette will host a community consultation meeting to discuss the condominium development proposed for 1844 Bloor St. W.

The meeting takes place Thursday, March 1 at Humberside Collegiate Institute's Lismer Hall from 7 to 8:30 p.m. It will serve to provide a status update and to initiate a consultation process. City of Toronto planning staff will outline the process, which will require the commitment of a small group of community volunteers to participate in a design working group with the developer, The Daniels Corporation.

Planning staff will outline the process by which volunteers will be selected to participate in the design working group. It is anticipated that the group will meet three evenings over the next two months.

Tonight's meeting was as crazy as earlier ones described on the previous page. It seems these local ratepayers are an emotional bunch, certain that the sky will fall, only interested in venting, and with little patience for the grand gestures let alone the subtleties of the planning process or the law.

The meeting was chaired by City Councillor Sarah Doucette, and the current situation explained by City Planner Phil Carvalino and then by Neil Pattison, director of development for Daniels. Council in January voted to refuse the zoning by-law amendment of the 14-storey plan despite Carvalino's recommendation that it be approved. Daniels has since appealed the ruling to the OMB. Daniels will likely win its case at the OMB owing to the Planning Department recommendation. The design working group to be discussed tonight would be in regards to the Site Plan, the aspect of the project not being appealed to the OMB. It was clearly stated by Carvalino and Pattison that height and density would not be within the purview of the working group.

The meeting was opened to questions.

Other than from one local who actually asked pertinent design-related questions (but who ultimately went on too long, returning to the mike three times), everyone else was interested in everything else. Issues of height, density, shade, parking, communications with residents re: this and other local projects kept coming up again and again. Many speakers asked "why didn't you listen to us at previous meetings?" Doucette or Carvalino would explain what had happened in due course up to this point all over again, and then a couple of speakers later the floodgates of ignorance would pour forth once again. Everybody seemed exasperated that their every demand had not been met and that they were not being listened to, all the while refusing to take on board the explanations proffered in response.

The word profit was spat out by more than one person in attendance as if it were anathema in our society that anyone should make a buck on a development, and the last speaker was particularly vehement that it went along with Daniels not caring about anything else: "They've been buying up those properties for 35 years! They just want to make a profit!!" Did it matter to this woman that it was not Daniels that had assembled the property over the years? Didn't seem to. Did it matter to her or just about anyone else there that Daniels had gone to the community three times for consultation - two times more than required - and made a number of changes to improve the project? Nope. Did it matter that Daniels was now setting up a working group to talk about materials and landscaping, when they aren't required to? Not at all.

One speaker showed some sense; a lawyer (who admitted that real estate law was not his area - he was not looking for a job) tried to bring some sanity to the proceedings, letting people know that sheer passion at an OMB meeting would have null effect, and that they would have to raise money, likely $150,000, to pay for an advocate and for experts to dispute what he considered are a very well written set of reports by Daniels, their consultants, and the planning department. Some in the audience got the message, but it was not enough to turn back the tide of misinformation, blinkered fear, selective deafness and denial from most.

Despite all of the fuss, what will happen, will happen: a number of residents will be selected to sit on the design committee, there will be three meetings in late March and early April, and the rest of the case will roll on unstoppably to the OMB.

- - -

This was the third public meeting I sat in on this week, the other two being downtown. The City Councillors in attendance, the planners, and the developers' representatives typically show enormous amounts of patience to a degree that goes above and beyond… but I wonder how many of them follow these meetings with a stiff drink or two or three before calling it a night. They aren't always in the right, and the locals aren't always in the wrong, but tonight the term NIMBY fit majority of the crowd like a bespoke glove.
 
Mind you, the building should be redesigned. It needs more brick, less glass. The winds coming off the lake here are pretty strong--glass is proven to not be energy efficient so more brick or other cladding would work here. The massing could be changed thus lowering the height of the building while maintaining the density.

Otoh, I imagine many of the nimbies associate condo buildings with the rental buildings in the area. They likely look down (well we look down haha) on us renters.
 
Daniels stated that they are open to modifying the percentage of glass on the exterior. That will be within the design working group's purview.

42
 
Thank you 42 for a most enlightening report.....anyone here at UT who is naive enough to think that we don't need the OMB should read your post very carefully....the unfortunate truth is that most "citizens" who come to these meetings are selfish in their outllook, and hence we hear their predictable objections, over and over again. The OMB is the best tool to allow the developer to sidestep these NIMBYs and their agenda..I would suggest that anyone who loves development and city building should welcome the OMB as an essential part of the planning process.

UD, I don't think this building needs a redesign at all...surely the 'winds off the lake' up here at Bloor are no worse than those right at the lakeshore..I don't recall you objecting to, say, Pier 27..why the double standard?
 
Pier 27 was designed by aA for starters, and is much more interesting. Also, it was designed c.2005.

This building is very similar to Daniels/D+S's Regent Park efforts. I'd like to see something innovative and interesting here. Perhaps by S+P or Paul Laurendeau.

The winds may be bad here due to there be the park? I am not a wind expert.

I named the current proposal a renderpornstar because parts of it I love. It's just that big bland glass box part I find boring on second thoughts.
 
"I would suggest that anyone who loves development and city building should welcome the OMB as an essential part of the planning process."

Yyzer, I love development and city building but I would not classify this project as good development or city building. My comment has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with the linear length of street frontage taken up by this one project. Picture walking down the block on this stretch of Bloor in the future when this project is built. What an unpleasant experience! I'm not saying this development is bad, it just isn't good either. The present reality of the block is not good either so I can't honestly be in opposition.
 
I would like to see the square moved inwards to a private courtyard for the residents, and a continuous streetwall along Bloor with some variety of course. The public space is across the street, and above the subway row. No need for more space here.

It would also be cool to incorporate several (if not all) of the old buildings into the design, restored and wrapped in glass perhaps with new residential directly above?

NimbyTect is working on some solutions.
 
Yyzer, I love development and city building but I would not classify this project as good development or city building. My comment has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with the linear length of street frontage taken up by this one project. Picture walking down the block on this stretch of Bloor in the future when this project is built. What an unpleasant experience! I'm not saying this development is bad, it just isn't good either. The present reality of the block is not good either so I can't honestly be in opposition.

I don't see why it would be unpleasant. It appears to have retail space at grade. The courtyard facing the park is great so long as it is actually used as a patio for a restaurant or pub (not another coffee shop please). If it just becomes dead space then I would agree, a continuous streetwall is better, but patios along Bloor facing the park are needed. Squeezing into a chair on the tiny patios at High Park Deli or Mackenzies don't cut it. It will be great to have some more retail/restaurant space across from the park, I never thought that single family residential made sense along Bloor and the old low rise buildings, while nice (but some are not maintained as well as they could be) don't have any retail space.
 
Sounds like these NIMBY's are way more unreasonable than the ones from the downtown meetings. I think the design is decent although further refinements would be appreciated. The massing is appropriate, being along the subway line and a main street like Bloor. The mass of the building is scaled back, and doesn't overwhelm Bloor. There are already several buildings along that stretch with similar heights to those boxes that front onto Bloor. This building interacts with the street well with the retail space and forecourt.
 
Last edited:
This was the third public meeting I sat in on this week, the other two being downtown. The City Councillors in attendance, the planners, and the developers' representatives typically show enormous amounts of patience to a degree that goes above and beyond… but I wonder how many of them follow these meetings with a stiff drink or two or three before calling it a night. They aren't always in the right, and the locals aren't always in the wrong, but tonight the term NIMBY fit majority of the crowd like a bespoke glove.

That was a great summary I42. Agree completely with everything you wrote. I was in the meeting too and could only stand it for an hour. I had to get out of there. Some people are very smart and make great points - but the overbearing people who come across with this sense of entitlement and naivete towards city growth just ruin the whole process. And all the clapping? Just ridiculous. The bulidng is fine, but nothing spectacular. But it does add some nice density, isn't overbearing at street level and makes sense on a subway line. Basically no one wants to give up their 'suburban-style' area to allow for densification or development - particularly their parking.

Apparently there are 2 more applications imminent along Bloor West. 1991 and 2101 or something around those numbers. Another meeting scheduled for Thursday, March 8th to bring those to the public. Sure to bring the same people with the same issues. Although the initial proposals were supposedly already rejected by Councillor Doucette for being way out of scale. Much different site compared to 1844. Should be interesting to see.
 

Back
Top