Toronto 1375 Queen West | 35.22m | 10s | Skale | Giannone Petricone

ProjectEnd said:
Approved at tribunal:
Click to expand...
Did we ever get a locked-down "Affordable Rental" (Units / Years) number on this site ..?

In September 2020 there were discussions of - "Provide 20% of affordable rental units through the
City’s “Open Door Affordable Housing Program” when it was at 8-Storeys / 46-Units /
3,546 square metres) which would have been approx. 9-units.

By Jan 2022, at OLT it was "determine if there are opprotunities for Affordable Housing units." :rolleyes:
1660337505991.png

1660337438050.png
 
Skale Developments made promises during their community consultation to \"provide 20% of affordable rental units through the City’s Open Door Affordable Housing Program” and so far they’ve failed to follow through on these commitments.

CBF Poster (4).png


 
Parkdale People's Economy said:
Skale Developments made promises during their community consultation to \"provide 20% of affordable rental units through the City’s Open Door Affordable Housing Program” and so far they’ve failed to follow through on these commitments.

View attachment 421513
Click to expand...

The financial viability for the delivery of affordable housing is in a drastically different state than it was even 6 months ago, let alone when this project was first conceived.

If the City was serious about incentivizing affordable homes here (and elsewhere), it would fast track project approvals -- let alone taking what should be slam dunk approvals to the OLT -- and drop a number of its aesthetic preferences that make affordable housing harder to deliver. Because the City is not, in fact, serious about getting more affordable housing built, it missed a golden window of opportunity to build lots of it before interest rates and construction costs made it uneconomical at scale without direct subsidy in most circumstances.
 
smably said:
I am shocked and appalled to see brick going all the way to the top! Someone alert the planning department so they can force the architects to switch to cheap aluminum siding above the stepback.

(Just kidding, this is great.)
Click to expand...

Quality building material snitch line to be activated any minute now. 😉
 
The new rendering is updated in the database. The total unit count changed from 50 units to 47 units.

Rendering taken from the architectural plan via SPA.
 
Perks must be giving staff the evil eye for them to have thrashed this project so thoroughly. Mandating parking spaces on greenfield infill on Queen Street is something I thought we stopped doing before the fall of the Berlin Wall! Then they give the whole project a major haircut, delay it by two years, and look around for someone to blame when the developer roles back their affordable unit promise.
This is brutal, I cannot wait for Perks to either retire or get voted out so some serious housing construction can get underway in the west end. On a related note, his oversight of the conversion of lots of Parkdale back to mansions is shameful. Somehow during the greatest building boom in the cities history, a quarter of Perks ward (west of Ronces, south of Bloor) does not have a SINGLE new unit underway. Every stroll through the area reveals a decline in affordable units, as boarding houses get converted back to SFH by incoming yuppies. Shameful.
1699841309981.png
 
Paclo said:
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

Minor variance requesting a reduced step-back distance above the 6th storey from 3.4m to 2.1m. No other stat changes.
Click to expand...

I just want to post the Cover Letter para to clarify (not correct) what's state above.

1713294906611.png

So this is the 7th floor setback, and total setback remains 4.1M from the property line.

I take no issue w/this, it will have no adverse impact that I can ascertain.
 
Northern Light said:
I just want to post the Cover Letter para to clarify (not correct) what's state above.

View attachment 556915
So this is the 7th floor setback, and total setback remains 4.1M from the property line.

I take no issue w/this, it will have no adverse impact that I can ascertain.
Click to expand...
Side note, but it's really nice to see the applicant spell out the reasoning behind this change in such clear and thoughtful way, with just enough planning jargon to get the point across.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top