News   Jul 31, 2024
 182     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
 367     0 
News   Jul 31, 2024
 311     1 

Condominium Plan Sparks Fight In Beach

wyliepoon

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,011
Reaction score
3
Link to article

Condominium Plan Sparks Fight In Beach
Five-Storey Building; Architect defends design he plans to live in

Rebecca Penty
National Post

Saturday, September 22, 2007

A waterfront condominium proposal in the Beach has prompted an outcry from residents, who fear it will bring a flood of high-rises to the water's edge.

"It would be a disaster to let developers build condos along the waterfront in a residential area," said Harold Tabone, director of communications for the Beach Lakefront Neighbourhood Association Inc. "This will open the floodgates to other developers and set a precedent.''

The association and the local city councillor, Sandra Bussin, are holding a public meeting Monday to discuss the project, which would put a five-storey condo building at the foot of Neville Park Boulevard.

The development -- which will also include a separate detached house -- would require changes to the city's official plan for the area. The building is almost 18 metres high, six metres more than allowed, and its 16 units are more than twice the density allowed under current zoning.

Architect and developer Dermot Sweeney said both he and the other developer, Gordon Kaiser, plan to move their own families into the building.

"What I'm trying to do is create a very viable alternative to the single-family home," Mr. Sweeney said.

The units will go for between $900 and $1,000 a square foot, he said, and purchasers would be able to combine units. He envisions a family would occupy between three and four 2,500-square-foot attached units.

All 16 units would have at least 40 feet of windows facing the water, according to Mr. Sweeney. There would be underground parking for 27 cars.

Mr. Sweeney argues there are already homes in the area close in height to his condominium.

"If I were to build three large houses they would be as tall or taller than the project we're proposing," he said.

Ms. Bussin said the project's height and density concern her, but a bigger issue is how the project would fit with the nature of the neighbourhood.

"This is a modern design in a traditional community," Ms. Bussin said, adding she is afraid neighbourhood protections in the city's new official plan won't mean anything if the development goes through.

"The new official plan has to hold water. Does the neighbourhood policy mean anything?" she said. Ms. Bussin said she fears other developers would push for even higher projects along the water if this one is approved.

Senior city planner Leontine Major said the city does not yet have a position on the proposal -- "We're stepping back. We're giving ourselves some extra time'' -- but said it would likely set a precedent in the Beach.

"It would be very difficult for us to defend ourselves at the Ontario Municipal Board against new developers on adjacent streets," Ms. Major said.

Mr. Sweeney said he thinks the high-rise precedent has already been set: a four-storey apartment building was built more than 70 years ago on 2 Nursewood Rd. Residents worry Mr. Sweeney will have to tear down a great number of trees for the project.

"He would have to cut down 30 to 40 trees, and six oak trees are more than 90 years old," said Mr. Tabone.

Local artist Elizabeth Berry has painted the proposed condo site from the rocks of the break-wall, and prints are being sold to raise funds for the battle.

"This is the most beautiful spot on the lake. Those trees are amazing, majestic and beautiful," Ms. Berry said.

But Mr. Sweeney said it's time to embrace good design. He said his firm has won awards from the city, and architects must have the right to ''express themselves and make new work.''

"We're not here to make things ugly," he said. ''There's no consistent architecture in the Beach. There are cottages and modern homes.''

Mr. Sweeney said he will attend Monday's meeting, to be held at The Beaches Recreation Centre. "Mine is a wide open door. I will meet with anyone at any time," Mr. Sweeney said.
 
Personally I don't see what's wrong with this. It's not like it's absurdly bigger than the current zoning. When was the last time the zoning for this area was updated? It's time to move on people.
 
The Star had a rendering and a story about it too. Not very impressive. I hope the residents win.
 
$900-$1000 per square foot. Incredible. And I thought the Festival condos were pricey. Five floors isn't that tall, but it certainly wouldn't add much to the area anyway.
 
"It would be a disaster to let developers build condos along the waterfront in a residential area," said Harold Tabone

Since when are condos non residential?
 
There is a similarly sized building at the end of Nursewood at the beach and another off Glenfern on the beach. Perhaps he should be only get four storeys approved to match the existing scale of the other multi-storey buildings and limit this type of development to those fronting directly on the beach.
 
Hey, why stop at 5 stories. Lets build 50! Better views for everyone. It's modern so it will improve this boring traditional area! whooo hoo.
 
Oversimplification of the Distillery debate is disappointing, old, and boring.

42
 
I agree with interchange. Next time I hear "if you oppose the towers you want the Distillery to be a museum or a Disneyland" or that "good design" excuses anything I'm going to scream! Such oversimplifications!
 
For what it is, it isn't a bad design. But there's something offputtingly off-kilter about resucitating Rosedale urbanism c1952 in 2007. Almost like: Benvenuto may be great, but what happens in the Benvenuto era, stays in the Benvenuto era.

It's certainly a banzai! moment for Urban Shocker types who decry heritage conservation districts as slamming the door on contemporary architecture forever and ever and ever...
 
I also agree with interchange. This is yet another example of the desperation of those attempting to link the Distillery District development with a proposal that has nothing to do with it either in scale, use, history, ownership, business plan, location, potential or anything else.
 
The units will go for between $900 and $1,000 a square foot, he said, and purchasers would be able to combine units. He envisions a family would occupy between three and four 2,500-square-foot attached units.

Does he mean "his" family instead of "a"? 10,000 square foot homes in the Beach are what he considers "viable alternatives"? Are people gonna pay $10M for this?
 
I also agree with interchange. This is yet another example of the desperation of those attempting to link the Distillery District development with a proposal that has nothing to do with it either in scale, use, history, ownership, business plan, location, potential or anything else.

Old clashing with soon to be dated modern.
 
To me, this vividly demonstrates the desperate need for a system of taxing planning gain like they have in the UK. Here's a developer who bought a lot zoned for maybe two or three single family homes. Let's be generous and say that he spent $1.5 million dollars. Now, if the city gives its approval, he can sell 16 2,500 square foot condominiums at 1,000 a square foot. That's 40 million dollars! Surely the city should be taxing that kind of a windfall entirely derived from the city's policy change.
 

Back
Top