Toronto 112 Harbord | 13.07m | 3s | 112 Harbord Limited | Barry Goldman Architect

greenleaf

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
2,783
Reaction score
2,737
Location
Downtown
Saw signs up up about severing property to create 4 townhouses on Robert with retail on lower level. It is currently home to a hair salon.
 

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca


This zoning review is to renovate both existing commercial units on the ground floor. Renovate basement to serve as back-of-house and public restrooms for proposed restaurant above. Extend both the second and third floors toward the rear and construct two, 2-storey dwelling units with direct street entrances. Construct roof deck access for both dwelling units.


harbod.JPG
harbod2.JPG



Current view of the site:


harbod3.JPG
 
Some additional renderings - now with colour!

296096665_10159352720236379_4074672491993396847_n.jpg

294843652_10159352720251379_4516343313797797827_n.jpg


And some info from the Harbord Village Facebook Group...
There was a community meeting today between proponents of 112 Harbord and neighbours. The plans have been submitted to the City of Toronto's Committee of Adjustment and involve adding a 2nd apartment, restoring the original brickwork, adding a patio and a ground floor restaurant. Some concerns were the little roof access structure on top and how visible it would be from the street, the nature of the windows, garbage bin placement, the small extension to the north, and if perhaps more trees could be planted along the boulevard. The proponent will be revising the CoA submission based on this input. The CoA meeting will happen October 12, 2022. Details are here: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Some concerns were the little roof access structure on top and how visible it would be from the street, the nature of the windows, garbage bin placement, the small extension to the north
Click to expand...

This city is insane. Absolutely insane to allow people who don't own a property to chirp and weigh in on all kinds of things they have no business doing. It is devastating how painful it is to try to do anything because of the politics of NIMBYism and nativism. Just soul crushing for anyone trying to build housing, built retail and services, improve public space, renovate a building, all at their own risk and expense... honestly. Really depressing.
 
Kenojuak said:
This city is insane. Absolutely insane to allow people who don't own a property to chirp and weigh in on all kinds of things they have no business doing. It is devastating how painful it is to try to do anything because of the politics of NIMBYism and nativism. Just soul crushing for anyone trying to build housing, built retail and services, improve public space, renovate a building, all at their own risk and expense... honestly. Really depressing.
Click to expand...

Far be it for me to defend NIMBYs, but I'm not sure how it is relevant that these people don't own property (nor do I think it's true... the overwhelming majority of NIMBYs, in all circumstances, are wealthy home owners). Home owners, as well as non-home owners, should be free to express concerns and endorsements about their community as they see fit. That is part and parcel of living in a democratic society. The discussions around these issues should be taken solely on the merits, or lack thereof, of any argument that is being put forward, not given more or less weight because the person putting forward said argument is or isn't a property owner.
 
T3G said:
Far be it for me to defend NIMBYs, but I'm not sure how it is relevant that these people don't own property (nor do I think it's true... the overwhelming majority of NIMBYs, in all circumstances, are wealthy home owners). Home owners, as well as non-home owners, should be free to express concerns and endorsements about their community as they see fit. That is part and parcel of living in a democratic society. The discussions around these issues should be taken solely on the merits, or lack thereof, of any argument that is being put forward, not given more or less weight because the person putting forward said argument is or isn't a property owner.
Click to expand...
@Kenojuak must have meant people who are not the owner of the property in question, not whether they belong to a class of landowners… no? The question is really how much weight should be given to the feedback on the proposal from locals and others… …and I don't see a problem with encouraging feedback, but which of it has any importance has to be weighed.

42
 
interchange42 said:
@Kenojuak must have meant people who are not the owner of the property in question, not whether they belong to a class of landowners… no? The question is really how much weight should be given to the feedback on the proposal from locals and others… …and I don't see a problem with encouraging feedback, but which of it has any importance has to be weighed.

42
Click to expand...
Right. Sorry it wasn't clearer. My point was that people who don't own a given property assume they have too much say -- and are given too much say -- about what happens on that property.
 
Passed by yesterday and noticed a trailer on site along Robert Street. Work could be starting sometime soon.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top