Toronto The John Lea on Broadview | 31.67m | 8s | Cape Group | KUA

I don't see anything wrong with this building, the site access on Pretoria makes sense. There are 2 car elevators for 17 parking spaces I'm not sure delays getting into the parking garage will be that significant. It appears the garbage trucks will be accessing from the lane directly to the west of the building and not delaying traffic on Pretoria.

This building appears to be very thoughtfully designed and I hope that it goes through. Not only does the access on Pretoria make sense it also allows for the laneway to be extended to the north in the future as the properties to the north get redeveloped so that access' to Broadview can be reduced.
 
For all the hand-wringing and whining about the OMB from some members of the public, this is why the Board exists. At City Council, good planning = good politics, rather than basing it on the planning evidence, and there is no rational explanation for a project like this to be rejected.
 
Skeezix said:
For all the hand-wringing and whining about the OMB from some members of the public, this is why the Board exists. At City Council, good planning = good politics, rather than basing it on the planning evidence, and there is no rational explanation for a project like this to be rejected.
Click to expand...

Nailed it.

Direct quote from the Final Report:
"In addition, the issues pertaining to access and egress off the site, parking supply, traffic impacts, solid waste collection, and overall function of the site have been addressed."
Click to expand...

But yeah, abolish the 'unelected, tyrannical' OMB and whatnot...
 
If one looks at the approved resolutions, it's not clear what TEYCC expects planning staff to do.

1. Referred back the Final Report - 838 Broadview Avenue - Zoning Amendment Application, dated October 9, 2015 from the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, with a request that the Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District, consider reductions in height and density, relocation of site access, and a review of impacts on the adjoining residential properties, in consultation with local residents and the Ward Councillor, and in conjunction with the completion of the Broadview Avenue Planning Study.​

Planners have already released a report outlining their professional findings. Now their findings are to be re-assessed "in consultation with local residents and the Ward Councillor"? This is a great way to ensure that City planning staff testify under summons against the City at the OMB.​


2. Directed that a further report on this application not be brought forward to the Toronto and East York Community Council prior to the completion of the site plan, and in consultation with the Ward Councillor.

In other words, don't come back with a report, even after you've done the "reconsideration" outlines in resolution 1, until your opinions are in accordance with the Ward Councillor. Not only does Fragedakis not have even an iota of respect for the professionalism of the City planners, but she doesn't even want them coming back to Council with their views resulting from this additional round of consultations that she has ordered until she has approved it. In other words, either agree with me or shut up.
​
Motion to Refer Item moved by Councillor Mary Fragedakis (Carried)

And the rest of TEYCC rolls over because Ward 29 is Fragedakis' fiefdom.​
 
TO100, you seem to be under the misapprehension that the project as proposed is dead. As others have said, this has a better chance of getting though the OMB than of being rejected. I'm not sure that the City has ever won a case at the OMB where the City ignored its own planning department's recommendation of approval.

Fragekakis's motion is bizarre, to say the least, as the language of point 1) fails to include any mention of engaging the developer in the considered reductions. The truth is that the developer doesn't have to engage the City at all at this point. As the City is long, long past the 120 day period it has to come to a decision, the developer has the right to appeal the lack of a decision immediately to the OMB. It's not guaranteed they'd go that route, but if they wish to pursue the development, it would be a near guaranteed win for them.

42
 
TO100 said:
Quadrangle architects used to have this project on their project Web page.

http://www.quadrangle.ca/our-projects/in-design/

But they took it out after the first community meeting. Why is that?

At the second community meeting they did a poor job. Not only they did not lower the hight and density, or improve the site access, they just added a second level of elevator parking. They were dumbfounded by the parking and traffic reports.

They get paid no matter what. The owner/applicant who payed them perhaps lacked experience and blindly followed the architects. Now the question is that if they want to keep paying the same architects who failed them, or reconsider the whole thing and either sell it or start over and redo it correctly.
Click to expand...

I'd expect Quadrangle would take it off their website as it is controversial, but they might have all kinds of reasons.

More importantly, it seems they tried to address your concerns at the second community meeting while not giving in to demands of lower height and density (I'd assume due to the fact they had planning approval and the owner's wishes were to proceed with the current height and density.) You seem to be of the opposite opinion, but to me the owner is the final arbiter of these things, not the architect, no?

I'm curious -- as you're obviously interested in this property, what do you consider 'proper' height and density? I had friends who used to live on Eastmount and that neighbourhood has wildly crazy different built forms. (They were in a small semi-detached across from the tower.) I don't quite get why this project, particularly since it seems to be very well designed, is a major problem for the neighbourhood.
 
As a private company, Quadrangle is under no obligation to any of their clients to showcase any project on their website outside of those they themselves choose. The nefarious plot you're implying is afoot is little more than your own imagination.

The stuffy letter to Jen Keesmaat that you've linked makes for cute, NIMBYistic reading but does not contain much of substance (there are also spelling errors which do not speak to any authoritative credibility).

Furthermore, in the latest community meeting presentation for the Broadview Study that you've linked, 838 Broadview is placed in 'Character Area A' which recommends three different types of mid-rise form. You'll note that the third, or 'Modified Mid-Rise' form, suggests buildings might be taller (of unspecified height but likely 26m if the diagram on p. 35 is to be believed) if their mechanical penthouse is wrapped. This is exactly what was done with the project in question. What's more, you'll see that on p. 33 and 34 of that presentation, 838 fits in quite nicely with the planned and future context suggested by the City. What's the issue?
 
TO100 said:
Broadview study plan is not concluded yet therefore option 3 does not apply!
Click to expand...

I'm not sure TO100 understands how this process will work, assuming the developer appeals this to the OMB (and given the TEYCC resolutions, they have been left with no reasonable alternative). Once those Broadview Avenue study plans and concepts are out in the public realm, they're out there. The City can't just say "oops, we didn't mean that" or "it wasn't final". Once City staff have released plans and documents that show this project conforming quite well with the planned and future context suggested by the City, they'll get beat up badly in cross-examination if they try and backtrack.
 
So now this ...


<The President, Toronto Parking Authority recommends that:


1. City Council authorize the acquisition by the City of the property known municipally as 838 Broadview Avenue (the "Property") from 2285566 Ontario Inc. (the "Vendor") for a purchase price of $3,252,000 and substantially on the terms and conditions contained in Appendix A attached hereto plus the additional expenditure of approximately $130,000 for associated costs such as land transfer tax, title insurance, appraisal fees, environmental studies, legal fees for a total acquisition cost estimate of $3,382,000.


2. City Council amend the 2016 Capital Budget and 2017-2025 Capital Plan for the Toronto Parking Authority by adding the capital project "838 Broadview Avenue Carpark Development" to be funded by reallocation of capital funds from "Carpark Provisions 2016" project included in the 2016 Approved Capital Budget and 2017-2025 Approved Capital Plan in the amount of $3,382,000 in order to facilitate the purchase of the property.

3. City Council direct that subsequent to acquisition, the Property be designated for municipal parking purposes, to be managed by the Toronto Parking Authority.>

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.GM9.10

TPA, having lost the battle to flatten 811-813 Broadview for a parking lot, now is going after this property. It's an ugly building, hardly worthy of saving, but is a parking lot what's needed?

P.S. Where is the quote button? Help!
 
Hit reply below the post you want to quote and it will insert a quote.

I sense a disturbance in the force here.. I feel this is not the explanation we are looking for. I somehow get the feeling the councillor pulled a few strings to get this instead of the NIMBY opposed midrise..
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top