Toronto 68 Wellesley Street East | 91.9m | 28s | KingSett Capital | BDP Quadrangle

Wow. I haven't been following OLT rulings as closely lately, but this is the first loss I can remember in the core in quite some time.
 
ADRM said:
Wow. I haven't been following OLT rulings as closely lately, but this is the first loss I can remember in the core in quite some time.
Click to expand...

66 Wellesley directly across the street, in 2021:

66 Wellesley Street East | 101.78m | 31s | ONE Properties | S9

The original proposal was WAY too aggressive, and at that time they did NOT own the existing apartment building to the west. They still don't even own the laneway that they were trying to build on. Your theory seems to be totally flawed. The City (IMHO) was totally right to reject the original...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
ADRM said:
Wow. I haven't been following OLT rulings as closely lately, but this is the first loss I can remember in the core in quite some time.
Click to expand...
This particular neighborhood has a number of vocal residents living in it who are opposed to development of any kind.
Their neighborhood association (the CWNA) crowdfunded some money, hired a lawyer, and enthusiastically fought against this proposal.
Never mind that the intersection it sits on could desperately use a refresh to deter the rampant drug use and other unsavory activity that frequently happens at its doorsteps.
Or, that this project wasn't ever going to get built in the first place.
 
citylights said:
This particular neighborhood has a number of vocal residents living in it who are opposed to development of any kind.
Their neighborhood association (the CWNA) crowdfunded some money, hired a lawyer, and enthusiastically fought against this proposal.
Never mind that the intersection it sits on could desperately use a refresh to deter the rampant drug use and other unsavory activity that frequently happens at its doorsteps.
Or, that this project wasn't ever going to get built in the first place.
Click to expand...
Oh man, those sneaky gays who don't want every single LGBTQ space in the City destroyed in the name of developer profits :rolleyes: How dare they!
 
TossYourJacket said:
Oh man, those sneaky gays who don't want every single LGBTQ space in the City destroyed in the name of developer profits :rolleyes: How dare they!
Click to expand...
You've expressed a common viewpoint -- and I've never quite understood it.
I think that argument would have more merit if we were talking about a site along Church in between Wellesley and Alexander where there are a number of local establishments that have greater relevance to the community.
But, it's hard to see how replacing an old dilapidated retail space that currently houses a Pizza Pizza, two vacant storefronts, a bakery and a convenience store would destroy the neighborhood.
It would more likely offer a huge improvement with better retail opportunities for businesses that could bolster the area once complete.
Also, allow more people to live in and contribute to this part of the city, perhaps making it an even more vibrant place.
 
citylights said:
You've expressed a common viewpoint -- and I've never quite understood it.
I think that argument would have more merit if we were talking about a site along Church in between Wellesley and Alexander where there are a number of local establishments that have greater relevance to the community.
But, it's hard to see how replacing an old dilapidated retail space that currently houses a Pizza Pizza, two vacant storefronts, a bakery and a convenience store would destroy the neighborhood.
It would more likely offer a huge improvement with better retail opportunities for businesses that could bolster the area once complete.
Also, allow more people to live in and contribute to this part of the city, perhaps making it an even more vibrant place.
Click to expand...
No one is saying no development in the Village, the City is saying no tower development- which is reasonable. As per the decision: "The built form, with its narrow shops, human scale, shadow-protected gathering spaces is not the culture, it’s what enables the culture."

You allow a tower on this site and it sets a planning precedent for the entire Village. From the decision: "If a tower is allowed here, it is certain that other developments within the village (most immediately Cruz & Tango development) will rely on it to support their applications. If this development is approved and becomes part of the planned context, the carefully planned framework designed to protect one of the most unique neighborhoods in the City will be completely undermined."

"Better retail opportunities"- better for who? the only ones who can afford shiny new retail space are giant chains/ banks. The area would become indistinguishable from any other part of the City. The argument that massive condos are the solution to remedy dilapidated parts of the Village doesn't make sense to me. If that were true, then the numerous new condos built within a 2 minute walk (adding the customer base/ density) would have helped.
 
If the City can force midrises to have a ziggurat shape to avoid casting shade on the backyards of a half-dozen NIMBYs, then surely it would be justified in preserving sunshine and a high quality public realm in the community spaces of a marginalized population.
 
Koops65 said:
It seems jimbrook wants the Village to stay the same, in perpetuity... no changes... EVER! Perhaps it could eventually become a museum?
Click to expand...
Not sure how this is your takeaway from my post. I didn't realize 'no tower development' meant no development whatsoever. Have you never heard of a midrise building lol?
 
Last edited:
Koops65 said:
You're right... sorry. However, "midrise" buildings are far and few between... I would bet that no towers also equals no midrise in the area either.
Click to expand...
It's about keeping the stretch on Church St between Gloucester & Wood St. with mid-rise developments, not high-rise. There's fierce pressure in east downtown now, and high-rises are going up all around the area, but the hope & fight is keeping the heart of the Village's neighbourhood character low & mid-rise. Three areas have been approved for mid-rise, the Crews/Tango/parking lot site, the N/W corner of Wellesley & Church and the former Beer Store property. So this forth high-rise proposal is a win.
As for the comment above re: deterring the rampant drug use by redeveloping an old building has absolutely nothing to do with that problem. No amount of gentrification is going to solve that.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
It's about keeping the stretch on Church St between Gloucester & Wood St. with mid-rise developments, not high-rise. There's fierce pressure in east downtown now, and high-rises are going up all around the area, but the hope & fight is keeping the heart of the Village's neighbourhood character low & mid-rise. Three areas have been approved for mid-rise, the Crews/Tango/parking lot site, the N/W corner of Wellesley & Church and the former Beer Store property. So this forth high-rise proposal is a win.
As for the comment above re: deterring the rampant drug use by redeveloping an old building has absolutely nothing to do with that problem. No amount of gentrification is going to solve that.
Click to expand...

Worth noting that exactly none of the approved midrise ziggurats have actually started construction. Forces a more expensive built form that’s much more challenging to make profitable. IIRC the beer store property has changed hands twice now, without further activity.

It’s not a ban on *all* densification, but ultimately seems to be functioning as one because it makes the projects so much less viable. It’s fundamentally the same mentality that the yellow belt has, only geared to freeze the neighbourhood in a somewhat more urban state.

I get wanting the bars to stay open, that should absolutely be a priority. Also understand completely the discontent that so much of the yellow belt is perennially exempt from development despite being just as well connected to transit. At some point, either housing gets built or it doesn’t though.

Anyway, wouldn't expect even towers to be starting construction in today’s market…
 
Villager01 said:
Worth noting that exactly none of the approved midrise ziggurats have actually started construction. Forces a more expensive built form that’s much more challenging to make profitable. IIRC the beer store property has changed hands twice now, without further activity.

It’s not a ban on *all* densification, but ultimately seems to be functioning as one because it makes the projects so much less viable. It’s fundamentally the same mentality that the yellow belt has, only geared to freeze the neighbourhood in a somewhat more urban state.

I get wanting the bars to stay open, that should absolutely be a priority. Also understand completely the discontent that so much of the yellow belt is perennially exempt from development despite being just as well connected to transit. At some point, either housing gets built or it doesn’t though.

Anyway, wouldn't expect even towers to be starting construction in today’s market…
Click to expand...

I think if it's clear that the height caps in the OP for this area have weight and the OLT won't be altering or tossing them, then what logically happens is that the area land values decline, and new builds and shorter heights and lower densities again make economic sense.

The challenge for existing owners of assemblies who paid a fixed price based on higher density is that they will have to take a write-down/loss on sale; I can't say I'm shedding any tears for people who drove up the cost of real estate by wildly over paying and then trying to make it back on developments never contemplated in by the OP or SASP.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top