Toronto 55 Mercer | 155.5m | 47s | CentreCourt | Arcadis

M

Mike in TO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,230
Reaction score
266
Location
Downtown Toronto
Couldn't find a thread for this anywhere...

The City approved the application for a mixed-use development at 99 Blue Jays way on May 25th. The appeal period for the OMB is up to June 28th.

The maximum permited height is 63.75 meters including the rooftop mechanical equipment. The built form envelope includes a 22.1m podium on the west side of the site and a 16.1m high podium on the east end of the site.
 
99 Blue Jays Way.

... further to Jdot's post

99BlueJaysWay-1.jpg


99BlueJaysWay1.jpg



Details here ...

http://www.urbandb.com/canada/ontario/toronto/99_blue_jays_way_it031.pdf

Final Staff Report here ...

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-580.pdf
 
This is very depressing news. Not that I'm a huge fan of sports bars, but it rankles me everytime another distinctive, viable, commercial enterprise gets hoovered up into the soulless glass maw of a condo tower. Especially when, in this case, there's a fresh parking lot RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET begging to be developed. Something is terribly wrong with this picture. The city needs to wake up and take more of an activist role in preventing this scenario from repeating itself ad nauseum.
 
Irishmunk: Should the City prevent the owners of the bar from doing what they wish with their property? They don't own the parking lot...
 
I believe it includes the building to the east of Gretskys restaurant as well.

Like BobBob said, it is up to the landowner to decide what he/she wants to do with their property. If the owner of the parking lot wants to reamain a parking lot owner, then a building wont be built there. If the owner of the building Gretsky's is in wants to build a condo, it is his perogative to apply for the correct zoming changes to get that done.
 
I completely agree, Irishmonk. We should think outside the box a little bit, and not use the same tired argument that "The owner can build whatever he wants on his property." That is obviously untrue, since every site in the city is subject to zoning. While this area is certainly appropriate for condos (there are condos all around), maybe we should think about introducing some kind of protections for traditional retail, similar to the official plan protections for stable residential neighbourhoods. There is no question that a successful retaurant and theatre offer a lot more to the neighbourhood than another condo. At the very least, the condo should be forced to include comparable retail, not the standard RabbaMovieStoreDryCleaners.

Oh, and it does include the Second City theatre to the east, as well as that little tiny parking lot.
 
I agree that we should tackle this problem, but as unimaginative suggested, do so institutionally, and not on a case-by-case "why don't they do this instead?" basis. For instance, we can change the minds of parking lot owners by boosting taxes on those lots, or something of that nature.
 
According to the area zoning plan, #99 Blue Jays Way shouldn't be there, it should be north of Adelaide. I guess this was a special non-conforming address for Gretzky? Would the site be renumbered if redeveloped?

Yeah, I don't mind a condo here, and this one might be a winner, but I agree with Unimaginative - some sort of zoning requirement for a restaurant/bar/specialty shop for each retail unit should be required. I also tire of the "build what ever you want if you own the land" argument as well.
 
Doesnt this plot of land fall under the King-Spadina development area? Wasnt that a much-loved project pushed out by Barbara Hall when she was Mayor, to designate all land in the area as an "anything goes" zone? So basically, anything goes, as long as it meets height and density requirements. We may be able to zone things for specific uses throughout the city, but this entire area was zoned for anything that the owners want, to help push development of the neglected area. I would have to say that the plan worked, as this is no longer a neglected area of the city. It would take the city re-zoning specific lots to save these buildings from condo development. I dont know if the city can do that without rolling out a new Official Plan. Can the city just start re-zoning plots of land without a request from the owner?
 
SeanTrans said:
According to the area zoning plan, #99 Blue Jays Way shouldn't be there, it should be north of Adelaide. I guess this was a special non-conforming address for Gretzky? Would the site be renumbered if redeveloped?

Yeah, I don't mind a condo here, and this one might be a winner, but I agree with Unimaginative - some sort of zoning requirement for a restaurant/bar/specialty shop for each retail unit should be required. I also tire of the "build what ever you want if you own the land" argument as well.
Click to expand...

Blue Jays Way doesn't exist north of King. It becomes Peter. And yes, I believe the street renaming to Blue Jays Way was done partly to accommodate the '99' address.

I'd love to see the city planning department really cracking down on this retail at grade stuff. Most of it is total rubbish, because the spaces that they build are terrible. They also refuse to rent to anybody but chains. Perhaps they could have some kind of "independent business" requirement. I agree that the "build whatever you want if you own the land" argument is absurd. If so, why on earth are we paying for a planning department?
 
A property owner can 'apply' to do whatever they want with a land parcel that the own. It is absurd to suggest that the current situation allows them to do whatever they want. The area in question is within a special planning district centred around King and Spadina that has more relaxed rules then the rest of the city - this has been met with tremendous success. Sure it is unfortunate that we may see the end of Gretzky's, but that is the way that the King Spadina plan intended for the area to grow in a more organic way with less restrictive rules - the result is one of the most vibrant areas in the city.

The planning department can't put in discriminatory zoning practices to protect specific restaurants from future development - the planning act doesn't allow for it and if the city tried to do so it would be quickly struck down by the courts.

Also it has been suggested that there is an empty parking lot nearby... this has been pointed out in countless threads before - you can't build where you don't own. It is as simple as that. I can't cook up a scheme to build something on that parking lot and submit it to city hall, and neither can the developer of 99 Blue Jays Way. The applicant has simply determined that his property is being underused and that there are more valauble uses for the land and therefore has submitted a development application to the city - it will be throughly reviewed by the planning department and several other departments as well as by the public - modifications will be made and the planning department will make a recommendation to council - which may choose to either approve or reject the application. Some have suggested in this thread that we need more rules and that property owners seem to be able to do whatever they want... the land development industry is already the most heavily regulated and one of the most heavily taxed in Toronto and across the province.... this area is one of the few where the rules have been relaxed and the result is one of the most vibrant areas of the city - I would seriously question the need to bring about even more stringent rules that cause further time delays and increase the cost for condo buyers.
 
another hotel was planned for the pakring lot not too long ago
 
I thought I read not too long ago that the parking lot was owned by Mirvish. Maybe if he gets the 1KW mess sorted out he can work on doing somthing with this property, unless he's dreaming of another theatre...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top