Toronto 1140 Yonge Street | 44.95m | 10s | Devron Developments | AUDAX

AlbertC said:
www.retail-insider.com

Landmark Mixed-Use Development in Toronto’s Rosedale Area to Feature Unique Retail Component

A former Staples store, which once hosted TV shows Front Page Challenge and Mr. Dressup, will be redeveloped into a stunning residential building with unique commercial space at its base.
www.retail-insider.com www.retail-insider.com
Click to expand...
A major improvement to the area, although from the article construction won't start for at least 2 years. I wish the developer would stop using the word 'iconic' though (Yonge & Summerhill an iconic intersection?) - it sounds like those click-bait tabloids referring to reality TV show contestants as 'stars'.
 
www.normli.ca

1140 Yonge by Devron Developments and Constantine Enterprises Inc.

A building befitting #1140Yonge’s Legacy. Developed by Devron Developments and Constantine Enterprises Inc. Visualized by #normandthegang.
www.normli.ca www.normli.ca


1140y.jpg
 
How this didn't get approved by City Council is beyond me. Imo, the city doesn't fight the bad proposals and doesn't encourage the good ones. Also, why not make this section of Yonge a mid-rise street? It would complement the Scrivener Square development much better, instead of having a pair of skyscrapers surrounded by tiny buildings.
 
daniel_kryz said:
How this didn't get approved by City Council is beyond me. Imo,
Click to expand...

That will have everything to do with the area Councillor; and the number of neighbours/area residents writing objections to both the Councillor and Planning.

The proposal, while attractive, did violate existing planning rules for the site. As we all know, such rules are changeable and this happens often in Toronto.

However, when a proposal happens in an affluent community (as this one is), it is generally subject to a higher degree of rigour than would otherwise be the case.

I am not suggesting that that is fair or good public policy, it's just the reality of the day.

Planning will take a lot of heed of what the Councillor wants; they will sometimes disagree, but it certainly matters.

The Councillor will take note of what the area wants, that's doubly true if that area is a key source of support, both political and financial.

The Council tends to defer to the neighbourhood Councillor, because they would like the same consideration in their ward.

daniel_kryz said:
the city doesn't fight the bad proposals
Click to expand...

City planning tends to follow the rules (though in the odd case may creatively interpret them)........

If something passes the legal/process thresholds for approval; and the Councillor isn't objecting strenuously, it goes through.

If the development breaches the rules; in a bad way; Planning may well seek to stifle it.

There's a limited suite of options.

daniel_kryz said:
and doesn't encourage the good ones.
Click to expand...

Planning definitely tries to help applications they are positive on; but political support for same matters.

daniel_kryz said:
Also, why not make this section of Yonge a mid-rise street?
Click to expand...

It will be, it's already happening. At 13 storeys, this is actually considered hirise.

The City's definition of midrise is 5-12 floors.

****

Let me finish off by noting, I like this proposal, and I hope a good settlement allowing approval is reached at LPAT.
 
How infuriating. This makes me wish we brought back the OMB. I think the councillor has far too much influence.

Does this proposal stand a chance if the developer removed a floor from the lower section? It could still look quite elegant at 12 floors and would fit the city's defintion of midrise?

Or Is it possible planning would come to a more reasonable compromise and greenlight the current proposal if the developer makes a large donation to local park revitalization/street art etc?

Or is council and the nimbyfolk so dead set on destroying this that we'll see the land sold and some ugly contemporary glass condo eventually replace it?
 
Last edited:
xy3 said:
How infuriating. This makes me wish we brought back the OMB.
Click to expand...

We did, they're just called the LPAT.

xy3 said:
I think the councillor has far too much influence.
Click to expand...

The Councillor has as much influence as any other. While I disagree w/the position here, it is, at least in part, the job of the Councillor to represent their constituent's wishes.
It's equally true that they ought to defend good public policy, from time to time, even when that isn't popular.
But that's easier said than done. It's also a good way to get un-elected. I admire politicians who are prepared to risk their careers for good public policy.
But they are far and few between.

xy3 said:
Does this proposal stand a chance if the developer removed a floor from the lower section? It could still look quite elegant at 12 floors and would fit the city's defintion of midrise?

Or is council and the nimbyfolk so dead set on destroying this that we'll see the land sold and some ugly contemporary glass condo eventually replace it?
Click to expand...

If council says no, it would be a shock if this doesn't go to LPAT.

****

What the area residents want and what is economically viable on the site are probably not something that can be resolved harmoniously.
The issue here is not really the design aesthetic, it's height and tapering. I suspect (but don't know) that the developer may be willing to move a bit on these issues as that is commonly the case.
However, I doubt the neighbours would be happy to settle for that.
Time will tell.
 
Last edited:
Arrrggghhh! This is one of those excruciatingly frustrating examples of NIMBYism gone mad. This whole stretch of Yonge will be mid-rises. This is a massive win for the neighbourhood and only 13 floors. I sense that nothing over 4 floors is going to make these people happy. Hopefully, common sense prevails and this moves forward largely unchanged.

Having to negotiate with people like that must be maddening. I'm glad I don't have to do it.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
We did, they're just called the LPAT.



The Councillor has as much influence as any other. While I disagree w/the position here, it is, at least in part, the job of the Councillor to represent their constituent's wishes.
It's equally true that they ought to defend good public policy, from time to time, even when that isn't popular.
But that's easier said than done. It's also a good way to get un-elected. I admire politicians who are prepared to risk their careers for good public policy.
But they are far and few between.



If council says no, it would be a shock if this doesn't go to LPAT.

****

What the area residents want and what is economically viable on the site are probably not something that can be resolved harmoniously.
The issue here is not really the design aesthetic, it's height and tapering. I suspect (but don't know) that the developer may be willing to move a bit on these issues as that is commonly the case.
However, I doubt the neighbours would be happy to settle for that.
Time will tell.
Click to expand...
OLT, as of Friday last week. ;)
 
For those following along.............this is the LPAT/OLT case reference:

1623179294860.png


And the time/date of the 1st Case Management Conference:

1623179369427.png
 
JT20 said:
right beside 2 subway stations, across from a 20+ tower, a nice upscale looking building, having to take on heritage restoration, all part of a 13 storey proposal which they came down from 15 stories, and Layton is saying "they're not budging". Also what is he talking about with "small site",

this is being published in Post City, it's for the neighbourhood to read. i'm sorry but this is just publicity for Layton to say that he's standing up against the big(midrise) bad developer so he gets reelected.

i hope it gets rejected at LPAT and another developer picks it up builds a 21 storey glass tower like the one across the street by Tricon, then they would wish they gave these guys their 13.
Click to expand...
Why be so vengeful? I don't think it would teach anyone a lesson, it would just ruin the neighbourhood forever. It's very clear that this site is appropriate for mid-rise densities, while Scrivener Square is appropriate for tall buildings due to its large area and reasonable distance from tiny homes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top