allengeorge
Senior Member
Oh - fair point - I didn’t catch that. Thanks for clarifying!
Your suggestions (especially around the TCHC unit and Harveys) make a lot of sense too.
Toronto 1631 Queen East | 64.7m | 18s | CreateTO | SvN
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Your suggestions (especially around the TCHC unit and Harveys) make a lot of sense too.
AlbertC
Superstar
Commentary from local reps and Councillor Brad Bradford:
www.beachmetro.com
Concern, confusion over 17-storey building at southeast corner of Queen Street East and Coxwell Avenue – Beach Metro Community News
By ALI RAZA, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter A new development proposed for Queen Street East and Coxwell Avenue is too tall for the neighbourhood and will set an unwanted precedent, some Beach residents are saying. Residents are “concerned and confused” regarding a 17-storey development...
www.beachmetro.com
AlbertC
Superstar
Indigenous Community Sharing Meeting to discuss Housing Now site at Queen and Coxwell
March 22, 2021
Indigenous Community Sharing Meeting to discuss Housing Now site at Queen and Coxwell – Beach Metro Community News
By ALI RAZA, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter The City of Toronto is hosting an Indigenous Community Sharing Meeting this week on its new development at Queen Street East between Coxwell Avenue and Kishigo Lane. The mixed-use development at 1631 Queen St. E. will replace the current Beaches...
www.beachmetro.com
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
As expected, "We, the Board of Directors of The Beach and East Toronto Historical Society find the proposal at 1631 Queen St. E. of eight, 10 and 17 storeys to be a most egregious and outrageous proposal."
Source - https://issuu.com/beachmetronews/docs/bmn-issu-21-04-06
Source - https://issuu.com/beachmetronews/docs/bmn-issu-21-04-06
Northern Light
Superstar
Just for one moment...........lets set aside the fact that there's a housing crisis ....
Lets also accept at face value a desire maintain a small-town character/feel along Queen Street.
Fine. Seriously. Why? Because none of that precludes the 17-storey building that would actually front Eastern Avenue, not Queen Street.
Lets first state, what should be obvious:
1) The character argument, insofar as it is sincerely made, is about the 'illusion' of modest height or what buildings feel like as you walk past them or across the street from them, on Queen Street.
2) There is no 17-storey building fronting Queen Street here; not even with setbacks.........it fronts Eastern, while occupying the same block as the Queen Street portion of the site.
3) Should there be height of up to 8 storeys fronting Queen, setbacks can be used, along with various cladding choices to emulate the best aspects of existing Beach/Queen retail in the area.
4) This site is barely in 'The Beach'; it's within metres of Coxwell Avenue. This area has never featured the traditional Beach/Queen retail vibe between Coxwell and Kingston Road.
5) The site looks like this right now:
(Queen Frontage)
My goodness.........look at that quality small-town retail main street character that will be adversely affected................
(Eastern Frontage) This is where the 17 floors would go:
Gasp.....it's going to interfere w/that lovely parking lot that gives such lakeside small town feel!
*****
Oh, and there's a housing crisis...........
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Anyone wanna guess average-age, ethnicity, home-ownership status, and years of home-tenure for the Board members of TBETHS...?
http://tbeths.com/about.asp
Undead
Senior Member
^I am totally sympathetic to the urgent need for more housing. But you aren't convincing anyone when you're referencing "ethnicity" in your argument lol
It's kinda pathetic that we keep going round in these circles which predictably consist of nimby hysterics followed by progressive claptrap and nothing gets solved. Sad!
It's kinda pathetic that we keep going round in these circles which predictably consist of nimby hysterics followed by progressive claptrap and nothing gets solved. Sad!
ferusian
Active Member
ProjectEnd
Superstar
SVN
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Completely innocuous. This type of thing should be the default in most of the city.
AoD
Northern Light
Superstar
The failure to incorporate both the existing TCHC building on Coxwell and the Harveys is terribly irritating.
The excuse on the latter is an uncooperative owner and the unwillingness to pursue expropriation.
The failure on the former, given City ownership, and a building in poor condition is beyond me.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
After REGENT PARK the City and TCHC introduced all kind of new mandatory "TCHC Tenant processes" when it comes to re-developing an existing TCHC site.
Following that process would add literally YEARS to this Queen East project.
The current 2021 plan allows for the TCHC site to be redeveloped as a stand-alone site (or in conjunction with the Health Clinic at Queen and Coxwell corner) later.
Northern Light
Superstar
I have no problem with deferring construction on the latter due to the above, but would prefer to see the whole site modelled together, then done in phases, with the existing portion of the site going first.
No need to get any future phases to working drawings; just get the high-level concept.
The object being to properly optimize the ultimate build-out.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
You can't take those "tentative" steps without the TCHC going through their process for declaring the site for Redevelopment --- which triggers a multi-year process.
For example, I think the Don Summerville site on the other side of Coxwell started that process almost a Decade ago.
Northern Light
Superstar
Then the process is incorrect and in need of change.
One can provide ample notice for community engagement and eventual need to move without the process dragging on for a decade.
I'm also not sure why one would need to declare a redevelopment in order to examine its possibility at a conceptual level............