Toronto 214-230 Sherbourne | 154.9m | 47s | KingSett Capital | Hariri Pontarini

AlbertC

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
22,343
Reaction score
60,375
Location
Davenport
Anti-poverty group wants vacant downtown properties turned into affordable housing


A group of anti-poverty activists is urging the city to expropriate a section of land in the Cabbagetown area before it's sold to developers in an effort to combat a lack of affordable housing in Toronto.

At a media conference at city hall Wednesday, the group, comprised of architects, academics and organizers with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), put forth a plan to build up to 260 rent-geared-to-income public housing units at 214-230 Sherbourne St., a series of seven properties currently sitting vacant in the area.

Among the properties is one 1900s-era building long home to rooming houses, now largely empty. The group says the properties' owners put the buildings up for sale in 2018, but later took them off the market after city council considered purchasing them. The city hasn't moved on expropriating the properties since, it says.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:

OCAP | 214-230 Sherbourne St.

Ontario Coalition Against Poverty is a direct action anti-poverty organization that fights for more shelter beds, social housing, and a raise in social assistance rates.
ocap.ca ocap.ca

Hand-scaled model of the development proposal.

IMG_8452-800x600.jpg


Current site:

20190703_185444.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well that building would never happen for about a million reasons. Structural, shadow, setback, space organization, fire safety, building efficiency, basically everything that can be done wrong has been done wrong.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Well that building would never happen for about a million reasons. Structural, shadow, setback, space organization, fire safety, building efficiency, basically everything that can be done wrong has been done wrong.
Click to expand...

Seems like you're being pedantic and disagreeing with a raft of issues that aren't meant to be taken literally in that model.

Architectural designer here. I think it's clever that the group is putting out a physical vision for the site - it grabs the attention of people who think about things in a concrete, spatial-sense way. There's also no fire safety or structural issues that make their vision unfeasible given that it's a cardboard concept model. Not to mention that there are a range of ways setback issues can be managed (especially for the sake of affordable housing creation) and "efficiency" is a very, very relative concept. (Also a different matter when creating social housing units vs. working for a developer who thinks a highrise tower with hundreds of units crammed into it needs to be made infinitesimally "efficient" in order to squeeze out those extra bucks.)

If you don't agree with the idea of putting social housing there, in that manner, or the politics of OCAP, that's all well and good, and that's another matter. But trying to make yourself sound like the smartest guy in the room by shutting down a cardboard vision model put together by non-architects is sort of a low way of going about that. I have worked on a number of urban design and highrise proposals and I think it's weird to hear a planner commenting on structural and fire safety issues, especially when they can't possibly be read from that model. Yeah, is that column a bit undersized to support the large transfer slab that would be required to pull off that "floating building" effect? Yeah, but something very similar could be achieved, unless you want to be pedantic and patronizing about what OCAP is surely aware of - that this is something that would have to ultimately be designed by a team of architects.

On a lighter aside, I actually think OCAP's little visioning exercise is more tasteful than what many of the condo architects in Toronto come up with as their initial concept so I applaud them for that. It also signals some ambition on their behalf related to scale and amenity, whether intentionally or not. Planners seem to despise the idea of a tower that is larger than the podium and hanging over in such a fashion but it actually solves the issue of a tight site that also wants some outdoor public space, and can create a very interesting element on the site as long as the tower is lifted high enough over the open space.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
Well that building would never happen for about a million reasons. Structural, shadow, setback, space organization, fire safety, building efficiency, basically everything that can be done wrong has been done wrong.
Click to expand...

1) it’s a model made out of cardboard, so how can you possibly determine that none of those requirements are met?

2) it was designed by architects, who would be qualified enough to consider all of these things if the city were to expropriate the property and build to OCAP’s plan.

The only unrealistic thing I see with this plan is the idea that the city will expropriate the land to make this happen.
 
Exactly. Every project starts with some sort of vision - you start with your vision, since you have to start somewhere on a macro-scale, and then work out the details as you go. Columns change shape, structure changes (new struct. grid, add a transfer beam here and there, etc.), fire-ratings are resolved, but you find a way to make it work. A visioning exercise is really the most early, starting step one can take and is never to be taken literally.

PS. I realize OCAP's tactics are not always really palatable to everyone, but John Tory's "well it sure doesn't help the situation to bring so much attention to the property" (paraphrasing) is absolutely pathetic in the context of him doing essentially a big fat load of nothing on the issue of affordable housing. People are getting desperate and it's a massive cop-out, when faced with people advocating for solutions, to suggest they are going to drive up the cost of the land.

If Tory and the city were really in a big hurry to do anything about affordable housing, they'd have run a serious campaign and done something by now. The property values have been going up since long after OCAP raised the alarm bells, and how much they go up at 214-230 Sherbourne Street is really moot at this point.

Sorry for another wall of text but I couldn't help myself but comment on what a stupid and smug comment that was from Tory.
 
The Star's article from yesterday:

www.thestar.com

Architects, advocates team up on affordable tower to slow ‘avalanche of condominiums’

The team is asking the city to expropriate a Sherbourne St. site for its designed 22-storey building focused on rent-geared-to-income units.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com


Architects, advocates team up on affordable tower to slow ‘avalanche of condominiums’

By Emily Mathieu
Affordable Housing Reporter
Tues., July 2, 2019

The property in question is a privately owned section of mostly grassy land, spread across 214 to 230 Sherbourne St., and includes a three-storey, boarded-up red brick heritage house called William Dineen House, located just south of Dundas St. E.

The Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and the Open Architecture Collaborative are making the case for a 22-storey tower that could have room for between 150 and 260 units of rent-geared-to-income housing and offer residents quick access to health services and meal programs all within a modern and energy efficient space.

The team, with fellow designers and activists, will present a report outlining their case for the city expropriating the land as well as sample renderings and a cardboard version of the tower during a press conference at city hall on Wednesday morning.

....

The building would consist of an 18-storey residential tower on top of a wider six-storey podium that would include a mix of housing and private amenities, such as health care and meal services, as well as public space that could be used for community programming.

.....

Mona Dai, an intern at an architecture firm who is volunteering as part of the Open Architecture Collaborative, said creating a dignified and livable space was top of mind.

“I think there is a lot of common sense put into it, in terms of thinking about how to create a building that is inclusive and welcoming to the public,” said Dai, noting the central courtyard’s sloping roofs that maximizes light. “The idea is there is going to be lots of greenery.”
Any structure, the group wrote in the report, could include features such as green roofs, permeable paving to reduce floodwater run-off and grey-water treatment systems.

Because the land would be owned by the city any potential development would be opened up for a request for proposal.

The property was briefly put up for sale in early 2018, during which time city staff did consider purchasing it, but it was quickly pulled off the market, the Star’s Rosie DiManno wrote last August, reporting on an OCAP protest at the site.

At that time city tax records placed the value of the empty lot and the vacant house at least $4 million, DiManno said.
Click to expand...

192918
 
Some history on 230 Sherbourne St, the William Dineen House:

Toronto Architectural Conservancy - TO Built = William Dineen House

www.acotoronto.ca www.acotoronto.ca

City of Toronto: Get involved - Public notice - Heritage land

Statutory notices - Notices under the Municipal Act, 2001: The City is required to give notice to the public of intent to pass by-laws, for a number of actions and to provide other information. City Council determines the type of notice unless specified by the Municipal Act, 2001. Council...
www.toronto.ca

And an older report from 2013 about discussions for this site:

‘No condos’ for once-glamourous Sherbourne Street, says councillor – TheBulletin.ca

News and information about Downtown Toronto for residents of core communities including the St. Lawrence Neighbourhood, Corktown, Cabbagetown, the Distillery District, Riverside, Waterfront, Leslieville and more.
thebulletin.ca thebulletin.ca
 
For any sort of meaningful engagement with the housing crisis and housing justice, action as significant as this or similar at massive scale will have to be taken and the city's current political culture is nowhere close to being able to grapple with that. The neglect by Tory and others to actually engage with the housing crisis and in particular true affordable housing is a complete moral failure. If Tory has no intention of actually doing anything about this extremely significant problem facing the city he should get out of the mayor's office.

I don't have a lot of hope for the city over the next while given how neglectful and in denial our leadership is and I think we're going to see the city really start to break down and buckle as the inevitable consequences of its mismanagement play out — it already is. My only hope is that we're going to start to see a generational turn over towards younger people who have grown up in the new Toronto, dense, broken but vibrant Toronto and are not completely out of touch about its problems, who largely aren't property owners, and have generally much more thoughtful politics on issues of justice. But with the timeline on construction of housing so long, we need urgent, substantial action now. Our leaders need to start thinking about the future of the city and what needs to be done.
 
Tuscani01 said:
1) it’s a model made out of cardboard, so how can you possibly determine that none of those requirements are met?

2) it was designed by architects, who would be qualified enough to consider all of these things if the city were to expropriate the property and build to OCAP’s plan.

The only unrealistic thing I see with this plan is the idea that the city will expropriate the land to make this happen.
Click to expand...

If you look further down you will see a computer generated model. This is clearly something that's a little bit more "Thought out" than someone making a box with cardboard.

Architects can get their OAA without having the first clue on how to design a cost efficient multi-res building that actually properly functions. This seems to be the case here.

.dwg said:
Seems like you're being pedantic and disagreeing with a raft of issues that aren't meant to be taken literally in that model.

Architectural designer here. I think it's clever that the group is putting out a physical vision for the site - it grabs the attention of people who think about things in a concrete, spatial-sense way. There's also no fire safety or structural issues that make their vision unfeasible given that it's a cardboard concept model. Not to mention that there are a range of ways setback issues can be managed (especially for the sake of affordable housing creation) and "efficiency" is a very, very relative concept. (Also a different matter when creating social housing units vs. working for a developer who thinks a highrise tower with hundreds of units crammed into it needs to be made infinitesimally "efficient" in order to squeeze out those extra bucks.)

If you don't agree with the idea of putting social housing there, in that manner, or the politics of OCAP, that's all well and good, and that's another matter. But trying to make yourself sound like the smartest guy in the room by shutting down a cardboard vision model put together by non-architects is sort of a low way of going about that. I have worked on a number of urban design and highrise proposals and I think it's weird to hear a planner commenting on structural and fire safety issues, especially when they can't possibly be read from that model. Yeah, is that column a bit undersized to support the large transfer slab that would be required to pull off that "floating building" effect? Yeah, but something very similar could be achieved, unless you want to be pedantic and patronizing about what OCAP is surely aware of - that this is something that would have to ultimately be designed by a team of architects.

On a lighter aside, I actually think OCAP's little visioning exercise is more tasteful than what many of the condo architects in Toronto come up with as their initial concept so I applaud them for that. It also signals some ambition on their behalf related to scale and amenity, whether intentionally or not. Planners seem to despise the idea of a tower that is larger than the podium and hanging over in such a fashion but it actually solves the issue of a tight site that also wants some outdoor public space, and can create a very interesting element on the site as long as the tower is lifted high enough over the open space.
Click to expand...

I'm all for affordable housing here - just trying to highlight that the building shown above is nowhere close to realistic to try and stymie the inevitable complaints on this board of the design getting "cheapened" when / if it turns into a real project.

I'm all for some more variety in design and bending the rules a bit - just being realistic here. Affordable housing and creative architecture or not, this would never get approved as is.

307 Sherbourne had to fight tooth an nail to avoid shadow impacts on Allen Gardens. What does this proposal do? site its tower on the furthest north part of the site to maximize shadow impacts.

I would be surprised if this even meets the 5.5m needed for windows on the north property line, yet alone meeting the essentially mandatory 12.5m tower setback from the property line. Sure you could ignore the 12.5m, but you are likely just setting yourself up for a lengthy LPAT appeal from the neighbours to the north by doing that.

There are about a thousand things in that proposal that would make it expensive as hell to construct. Sure, it's nice to spend a bit on architecture once and a while, but is using extremely limited affordable housing budgets really the way to do it? Would you prefer a slightly unique architectural expression, or housing for an additional 30 families? When residential developers drive costs and efficiency, they do it for a reason. Cost drivers are no different in an affordable housing model, and if anything cost is even more sensitive. The more efficient the design, the cheaper it is to build a single unit, allowing more units to be constructed with the same limited amount of funding.

Structurally the "floating tower" would be extremely complicated and expensive. Like, extremely expensive. That transfer slab would be crazy with the extent of the overhang proposed.

The tower floorplate looks small, meaning likely only a couple of units a floor. The bigger the tower floorplate, the more units you can service by a single elevator core an set of exit stairs. Saves money. You may as well bring it to 750sm which is the max the city allows, especially considering this site seems to have the space.

The podium levels of the building are extremely narrow - once you introduce a corridor you are likely looking at only wide-shallow single loaded units. Extremely inefficient, extremely expensive.

The building's podium slowly scales up two floors on the south wing. This looks great, but creates the need for a second elevator core and likely an additional fire stair. Just to service what is likely only 6 units or so. $$$$$$.

Then you get to how the building even functions. you have these extremely shallow ground floor spaces and the one deeper space is going to be needed for your elevator core and lobby.. Where are they even fitting their parking ramp and loading space?

The reality is here that this will operate on a limited budget. The City should be looking to fit as many units onto the site with the money it has. So that means they need to regularize the structural and functional design of the building, and put a bit of the savings perhaps into a nice architectural expression on the more regular built form.

To me any one of these issues aren't a deal breaker. The problem is that when combined they don't speak to an "innovative" design, just plain incompetence. The design does everything "unconventionally".
 
Last edited:
I am supportive of the idea; but not the site as currently envisioned, nor the proponent.

To me, government/subsidized housing should follow the Vienna model. There some 62% of the population live in social housing.

I'm not suggesting we aim for that here, lest anyone misconstrue, rather I'm pointing out that these are mainstream, even desirable places to live in Vienna, not second-rate housing of last resort.

www.huffingtonpost.ca

The City That's Built An Affordable Housing Paradise

Public housing is the accommodation of last resort in the U.S. Not so in Austria's capital city.
www.huffingtonpost.ca www.huffingtonpost.ca

In this particular case, I would argue for 2 broad strokes changes to the idea.

The first is that I would include that awful 1-storey plaza at the corner in the assembly. That, and shift the location of the house on Sherbourne, if it is retained at all, could lead to a more logical layout that would better satisfy planning concerns.

The second, is that I think this building should really follow the Vienna model, it shouldn't aim to be the cheapest housing out there, it should aim to create a great place to live.

Then reserve a portion of the units as deeply affordable, a further portion as somewhat below market-rent (rent at cost), and then some units ...maybe 1/3 at full market value.

That would help the neighbourhood by both housing those who need it most, but also providing an injection of influential, monied folks who can sustain local businesses and who can ensure the area and building are well maintained, for everyone.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I am supportive of the idea; but not the site as currently envisioned, nor the proponent.

To me, government/subsidized housing should follow the Vienna model. There some 62% of the population live in social housing.

I'm not suggesting we aim for that here, lest anyone misconstrue, rather I'm pointing out that these are mainstream, even desirable places to live in Vienna, not second-rate housing of last resort.

www.huffingtonpost.ca

The City That's Built An Affordable Housing Paradise

Public housing is the accommodation of last resort in the U.S. Not so in Austria's capital city.
www.huffingtonpost.ca www.huffingtonpost.ca

In this particular case, I would argue for 2 broad strokes changes to the idea.

The first is that I include that awful 1-storey plaza at the corner in the assembly. Tha, and shift the location of the house on Sherbourne, if it is retained at all, could lead to a more logical layout that would better satisfy planning concerns.

The second, is that I think this building should really follow the Vienna model, it shouldn't aim to be the cheapest housing out there, it should aim to create a great place to live.

Then reserve a portion of the units as deeply affordable, a further portion as somewhat below market-rent (rent at cost), and then some units ...maybe 1/3 at full market value.

That would help the neighbourhood by both housing those who need it most, but also providing an injection of influential, monied folks who can sustain local businesses and who can ensure the area and building are well maintained, for everyone.
Click to expand...

Or look at the Dutch VINEX housing policy. The general North American model is basically doing nothing and let market forces to have things fall where they are.

AoD
 
A report going to the next Planning and Housing Committee on Dec. 10th 2019 addresses 2 major investments in this area, in broad terms.

One is renewing the existing Dan Harrison Housing complex north and east of the Dundas-Sherbourne intersection which is a mix of conventional affordable housing and 17 rooming houses.

The other is looking to acquire the properties on the west side of Sherbourne south of Dundas for new affordable housing. These are: 214, 218, 220, 222, 224, 226 and 230 Sherbourne Street.

Report is here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-140655.pdf

Its fairly non-specific on what is envisioned in the renewal of the existing complex; or what is hoped for on now neglected private parcels to the south-west.

I feel mixed income is an extremely important strategy in creating a renewed neighbhourhood, without reducing (and indeed while increasing) affordable housing opportunities.

I suspect that a larger number of sites need to to be examined to fully affect the desired change here; along with initiatives to permanently house those who are homeless/transient in the area; provide greater assistance to those struggling with addiction, as well as
other investments that make the area more attractive and healthy.

I would be strongly inclined to eliminate most of the rooming houses in favour of providing the residents proper apartments; and use some of the existing heritage homes as private sector ownership or rental (subject to designation for heritage properties, if this is not already the case)
 
3Dementia said:
Good post.

Still makes me wonder about displaced residents during the Regent Park make-over. How many get to move in during/after the mega change.
Click to expand...
I think everyone was eligible to move back BUT many decided they preferred the new locations they had been moved to so did not bother.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top