845-895 Jane St (Devron, ?s, ?)

[Northern Light]

From the Lobbyist Registry, we learn that the plaza at the corner of Jane and Alliance is in play.

​

Details for Subject Matter Registration: SM31849​

Lobbyist's Name

Mr Amir Remtulla

Decision(s) or issue(s) to be lobbied

Feasibility of potential mixed-use redevelopment - 845-895 Jane Street

Client is 2616942 Ontario Inc.

But parent of that client is: Devron Developments Inc.

********

Site as it appears now:

Site includes the adjacent Tim's

Some SFH at the north and east edges of the site, but hirise precedent directly across the street to the west and to the north.

Intriguing, to me, is that with all the flooding issues in this area, this plaza site is not in the regulatory floodplain!

 

[Towered]

Love it. Death to all mid-century strip plazas!

 

[ProjectEnd]

Love it. Death to all mid-century strip plazas!

I mean, yes and no. Sure, they're terrible and auto-centric, but once they're gone, if the site gets filled out with mostly residential structures, there's a huge dearth of commercial space available to the wider community. These things are easy to hate, but they provide cheap retail and office for dentists, doctors, etc. in the neighborhood. Mono-use suburbs only get further entrenched with their heavy-handed removal.

 

[Northern Light]

I mean, yes and no. Sure, they're terrible and auto-centric

Yes.

, but once they're gone, if the site gets filled out with mostly residential structures, there's a huge dearth of commercial space available to the wider community. These things are easy to hate, but they provide cheap retail and office for dentists, doctors, etc. in the neighborhood. Mono-use suburbs only get further entrenched with their heavy-handed removal.

Why should it be that way though? Easy enough to not only allow for mixed use, but require it.

A stubborn enough developer might get away with something wholly inadequate, but the City can certainly be quite coercive if it chooses to be in ensuring retention of a supermarket, additional retail and even an office-component.

If the developer knows that in exchange for that, they can get relatively smooth sailing through the planning process, many would surely be amenable.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The City just doesn't see it that way. The only place where you can be somewhat 'assured' of that is North York Centre because of the bonusing that's built into 7625. Even then, you need strong advocates in Planning to get things through the minefield that is Filion's office.

Devron will weigh options, but they won't build anything that doesn't benefit them. They certainly won't be doing new office in this part of town since it'll cost more to construct than you'll get out of a lease. Unless you can be assured that there's some definite quid pro quo, it's going to be what makes the most sense for their bottom line. And that will be res, with a bit of convenience retail thrown in.

The Richview Square proposal doesn't even remove the existing plaza, is right on Eglinton, and has had about the roughest time imaginable. Why would it be any different here?

 

[W. K. Lis]

Intriguing, to me, is that with all the flooding issues in this area, this plaza site is not in the regulatory floodplain!

View attachment 334548

Being an asphalt desert, any rainwater that falls on the parking lot and roof could end up in Black Creek, adding to any flooding downstream. Hopefully, they'll include rainwater retention or dry well storage, to s-l-o-w-l-y release the rainwater into the ground or rainwater sewers as a last resort.

 

[Northern Light]

The City just doesn't see it that way. The only place where you can be somewhat 'assured' of that is North York Centre because of the bonusing that's built into 7625. Even then, you need strong advocates in Planning to get things through the minefield that is Filion's office.

Grocery tenants pay good rent and make a very nice, stable, secure ROI. There's really no business sense to removing one. Building a replacement into the base of a tower is something very do-able, with lots of precedent in Toronto.

Also worth pointing out that while grocery really wasn't in play, (in terms of being removed) with Choice's proposal at 985 Woodbine, the City managed to send them back to the drawing board because Bradford wants jobs and affordable housing.
There hasn't been an appeal, at least thus far...........

Devron will weigh options, but they won't build anything that doesn't benefit them.

Of course. But I don't see keeping a secure, safe, ROI tenant as economically problematic. Nor do I envision office space (a small amount) that works for Doctor's offices and the like, on a 2nd floor over the retail as being a particularly arduous ask.

They certainly won't be doing new office in this part of town since it'll cost more to construct than you'll get out of a lease. Unless you can be assured that there's some definite quid pro quo, it's going to be what makes the most sense for their bottom line. And that will be res, with a bit of convenience retail thrown in.

Again, I'm not suggesting a 'Class A' tower, I was specifically addressing your comment in respect of Doctor's offices and the like.

The Richview Square proposal doesn't even remove the existing plaza, is right on Eglinton, and has had about the roughest time imaginable. Why would it be any different here?

A fair bit, potentially.

First off, that residential base around there (Richview) is much more likely to fight a proposal of the sort they got. It's a more affluent, greener, lower-rise area profile (I'm not arguing in favour of that, simply saying that's the way it is now).
I don't perceive (perhaps wrongly) the same kind of pushback in an area where hirise is common, I would only see pushback over the absence of retail. Not over height (except from some immediately adjacent homeowners, but they are are both a small minority, and one easily catered to by a well thought out site plan and some downward transitions/setbacks on the appropriate sides.

Richview obviously didn't get pushback in relation to removing retail (because it didn't. So I don''t think the Richview site is the precedent to look to.

 

[cd concept]

Looks like there is a major development going to be happening on this huge chunk of land!

 

[A Torontonian Now]

I tend to agree with @ProjectEnd in principle, but am less concerned for this site. There is another plaza just to the north, and retail dots Jane Street from here south to St. Clair, which has plenty itself. This is a suburban-feeling location, but right on the edge of more urban ones, and the right sort of development here could help urbanize it. In locations further afield and with less nearby, the redevelopment of plazas for single-use residential is very problematic.

 

[W. K. Lis]

See also this thread, link, on

Black Creek at Rockcliffe Special Policy Area Flood Remediation and Transporation Feasibility Study​

Especially the PDF reference, at this link.

• Replace the existing 10.7 m span structure at Jane Street with a 102 m span bridge.
• Naturalize, widen, and deepen Black Creek from Jane Street to Rockcliffe Blvd. (55 m top width).

Presentation in PDF form at this link.

 

[Northern Light]

I tend to agree with @ProjectEnd in principle, but am less concerned for this site. There is another plaza just to the north, and retail dots Jane Street from here south to St. Clair, which has plenty itself. This is a suburban-feeling location, but right on the edge of more urban ones, and the right sort of development here could help urbanize it. In locations further afield and with less nearby, the redevelopment of plazas for single-use residential is very problematic.

I'm content to agree that each site is different, both for what's present; and also for their context.

In this case, I don't see why a reasonable development wouldn't follow.

There are certainly sites where I might have greater concern.

Obviously we have to wait to see what emerges as a proposal. (if anything)