Toronto 1728 Bloor West | 69m | 19s | Fairway | Gabriel Fain Architects

Just wandered around that area this evening and see that the building to the east of Vilnius Manor, #1680 Bloor, is also vacant and for sale or sold.
 
Jimto said:
Given the changes that have happened in the City, and study area, in the last 14 years, I think nearly everything in this particular study is out of date (other that the geography of the area, of course). At the time the study was being done, I attended a number of the public meetings and the methodology was questioned even then. Before each meeting, there were interventions by people wanting to know how the community representatives were selected, why that wasn't an open process and why those group meetings were not open to the public. Those questions were never addressed to my knowledge. It is notable, however, that some of the members of that group are the most vociferous NIMBY'ists in the neighbourhood and have actively opposed nearly every project, large and small, since that time.
Click to expand...
I don't think there is an expiry date on guidelines. What is 'off' about the study? - I think that would be the question.
 
There isn't, but I would argue there should be. As @Jimto correctly states, this particular study - like most the City author - bears no relation to the environment under development and was out of date (predatorily so, I'd argue) the moment it hit the printers. To flip your question, @Alex L, what is 'on' about the study? Is a 19 storey building 75m from a subway station in some way a bad thing?
 
ProjectEnd said:
There isn't, but I would argue there should be. As @Jimto correctly states, this particular study - like most the City author - bears no relation to the environment under development and was out of date (predatorily so, I'd argue) the moment it hit the printers. To flip your question, @Alex L, what is 'on' about the study? Is a 19 storey building 75m from a subway station in some way a bad thing?
Click to expand...
Presumably the developer could have researched that an avenue study had been done, and looked to conform to it, to avoid confronting the neighbours and councillor.

I haven't read the study, and I have no stake in the project, and I am not a neighbour. My point is simply that I think you can expect opposition if you go against a study which the City has spent money on. Which no doubt has the councillor's support, as he has been in place longer than 14 years. And why buy a plot of land for development with your eyes closed?

I myself can completely understand the opposition. It is pointless to simply insult people as nimbys when you are not in their shoes. What good does that do?

I completely understand that it appears like paralysis has set in. But not if you go in to conform to existing policy. I don't understand the lack of comprehension that something is in place. And that somehow development trumps planning. Whatever the merits of the building.

If the building is reasonable to the provincial tribunal, then it will get approved. But if you want to avoid going to the tribunal, you work with the community. And usually developers do. Projects get redesigned and resubmitted.
 
Last edited:
If the guideline says 9 storeys (I don't actually know what it says, but let's put it there) and I go in at 19 and expect to resolve at 17 or 18, ain't no amount of interest / holding / lawyers fees that can make up that gulf, especially if I have holding income from the Tim's.
 
Alex L said:
Presumably the developer could have researched that an avenue study had been done, and looked to conform to it, to avoid confronting the neighbours and councillor.
Click to expand...

Though this sounds logical on its face, this is simply not how development works in Toronto. It's not really helpful that that's true, but it is indeed so; one result is that it's not really fair to chastise a developer for nonconformity.
 
@Alex L makes some very reasonable points about doing your research and picking your battles as a land owner.

With that said, unless we start seeing multi-unit buildings spring up along along the residential side streets in the area (currently dominated by single detached homes) to meet the demand for housing and to achieve reasonable metropolitan density, there will have to be high-rises on the main street this close to the subway.

Anything less is simply failing the GTA as a region and dooming it to endless sprawl, congestion, car-dependence, and the perils and unpleasantness of aggressive driving.
 
Last edited:
@Alex L The problem with the study is essentially baked into the process. The City organises it and uses external consultants to run it. Local input is through a local committee and then a limited number of information meetings. The problem really is that it's very easy to "load" the local committee and that is what happened in that case. The Councillor, City satff and external consultants don't really care who's on that committee as long as they provide input. At both community information meetings I attended, there was at least 30 minutes of controversy and anger about the makeup of that local committee and the way it was assembled and did its business.

Having said all that, Avenue studies are not binding in any way. No major development in the area has conformed to the study and it's doubtful if any ever will considering how conservative it is. However, it's very easy for the Councillor and the NIMBY'ists to hide behind it when it suits them.

It seems to me that a more sensible approach is to try to work with the developer to get whatever you want, rather than hiding behind an old study - especially when the developer has the option to go to a very developer friendly OLT (as happened at a nearby project currently under construction).

FYI, in the study, the tallest buildings are 15 floors at the Petro Canada site and at Giraffe (NW corner Dundas and Bloor). Tallest on the Loblaw site is 11 floor.
 
Last edited:
This site is now within what has been designated as a Major Transit Station Area, (MTSA), following a Provincial mandate to municipalities that they must accept higher density developments within 800 metres of rapid transit stations, so @Alex L, the regulations regarding that completely supersede the 14-year-old study now, and that's not the only situation to have changed in the years since the previous study was written. We now recognize that there's a housing crisis to which we need a multi-pronged response, so every site that has potentially increased new housing on it is being looked at more seriously now.

42
 
Notice there is now an informal (so far) proposal for a 25 floor building at the adjacent 7-11 strip mall. Community consultation details (as a separate page has not yet been set up)::

Tuesday, November 14th, 6:30pm - 8:00 pm
Link to Join: bit.ly/1730bloor
Meeting ID: 835 2892 2909
Telephone Dial-in: (647) 558-0588

Suddenly the 19 floors proposed here is not so tall anymore :)
 
Last edited:
Alex L said:
I am sure there will be an issue of height with the neighbours and the amount of shade this project will create. Let's not kid ourselves. Expect the final built to be 14-16, I think. More in line with the condo a couple of doors away and maybe a floor or two more. I would be surprised if it is approved as is.
...
Click to expand...
No issue with height for this neighbour.
I often wonder why exactly do people opposed to height come to that opinion. As a pedestrian walking by at street level, does anybody even notice the height of the building they're passing? There is only one house that will be affected by height at this location and that is directly behind the 7-11. Other neighbouring houses are north of the subway station so wont be affected by the shadow from this.
 
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of TEYCC with staff seeking to oppose this at OLT.


Applicant appealed in October.

Staff reasons for opposition:

1705073943960.png

1705073974161.png


Staff would also like to get rid of the proposed parking entirely, in part because of the below:

1705074051973.png


*****

I agree with staff on sidewalk width, trees and parking and consider all three to be easily addressable.

Likewise w/unit mix.

I think any objection to the height, absent the issue of the blank wall condition is misguided.

The blank wall condition is an issue; and it may need to be addressed by either an Limiting Distance Agreement that allows for a different expression; or by finding a permanent (or temporary) way to make the blank wall less visually obnoxious.
 
Northern Light said:
The blank wall condition is an issue; and it may need to be addressed by either an Limiting Distance Agreement that allows for a different expression; or by finding a permanent (or temporary) way to make the blank wall less visually obnoxious.
Click to expand...
The architect and developer addressed the blank wall issue at the first community meeting. They detailed their effort (admittedly small) to mitigate it. There really isn't much they can do as the site is already small so increasing the setback would probably kill the project. In this case, they are clearly victims of a historical planning decision (Vilnius Manor setbacks). The real solution, IMO, for this site is for the owners of Vilnius Manor to buy and develop it.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top