Toronto 22 Metropolitan | 157.55m | 48s | Sunray Group | ZO1

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
22,393
Reaction score
60,497
Location
Davenport
http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...icationsList.do?action=init&folderRsn=3245701

22 METROPOLITAN RD

Ward 40 - Scarborough OPA / Rezoning

Official Plan Amendment to redesignate Employment Area lands to Mixed Uses Areas designation to provide for a mixed use development consisting of a new 13 storey hotel, 877 residential dwellng units in three, 20 storey apartment buildings, 5641 square metres of offices, and 5756 square metres of commercial uses.
 
22 Metropolitan Rd - Official Plan Amendment
Application - Preliminary Report


http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/pg/bgrd/backgroundfile-56257.pdf

This site at 22 Metropolitan Road is identified on Map 2 – Urban Structure of the Official Plan as an ‘Employment District’, and is also designated as ‘Employment Areas’. The application proposes amending the Official Plan to delete this site and two abutting westerly properties (1645 Warden Avenue and 8 Metropolitan Road) from the ‘Employment Districts’ indicated on Map 2. The application also proposes to redesignate the subject property in the Official Plan to ‘Mixed Use Areas’ to permit two 20-storey and one 21-storey apartment buildings containing a total of 877 residential dwelling units, and a new 201-room hotel beside Hwy. 401. Approximately 5 756 m² of retail commercial space on the ground floors of the three apartment buildings,and 5 641 m² of ‘institutional/office’ space in a 5-storey portion of the southerly apartment building fronting on Metropolitan Road, are also proposed. Two levels of underground parking throughout the site would accommodate 1,640 parking spaces for all uses.
 
This prospective development site returns from the dead.........

According the Lobbyist Registry anyway....

Bennett Jones is lobbying on behalf of 22 Metropolitan Road Inc. with Sunray Group listed as 'other beneficiary'

Since we don't have images in this thread, I shall add some.

Streetview first:

1646316766514.png


This site is a former motel/hotel which sits adjacent to the 401 at Warden Avenue.

Here we are looking south, away from the 401, Warden Avenue is just out of the picture to the right.

Aerial Pic:

1646316957621.png


Site Size: ~ 2.7 hectares / 6.7 acres
 
Here we are......in the form, so far of an OPA.......and it got a wee bit bigger:

1683274933382.png



From the Docs:

1683275291239.png


1683275321704.png


1683275364758.png

1683275419382.png

Figure 6 - Aerial View of Proposed Development (Prepared by
Z01 Architects)

1683275487025.png


1683275536338.png


1683275572850.png


1683275619768.png


1683275692527.png


1683275710556.png


Comments later.
 
Here we are......in the form, so far of an OPA.......and it got a wee bit bigger:

View attachment 474314


From the Docs:

View attachment 474315

View attachment 474316

View attachment 474317
View attachment 474318
Figure 6 - Aerial View of Proposed Development (Prepared by
Z01 Architects)

View attachment 474319

View attachment 474320

View attachment 474321

View attachment 474322

View attachment 474323

View attachment 474324

Comments later.
Shouldn’t we be against this because it’s taking over god forbidden employement lands. We are all against development just south of the queens way between islington and Kipling for that reason and the lack of transit. So I’m assuming people are similarly shocked and appalled at this proposal.
 
Time for comments. But first @AlbertC get over here and update the title already will you! LOL

***

Comments:

@ShonTron is on point.

The idea here is questionable, while there is residential across Warden, this pocket remains mostly commercial/industrial and had backing on the CP mainline.

If there were a notion to convert this site to MCR (Mixed-Use, Commercial/Residential) several things would need to be addressed.

First, however, lets note as @ShonTron did above that this site isn't particularly well served by transit currently. You're a considerable distance from the nearest E-W transit route, there's not any regional rail or subway close by currently, and the Warden bus here isn't even 24-hour.

Eventually there will likely be a Sheppard subway to the north of this site, but that's across the 401 and about 1.3km away, outside of MTSA range.

Put that to one side, you need to talk about the intense traffic on Warden here, being right next to a Highway interchange and not too far north of Costco; and you also need to note that there are currently no substantive parks that are an easy walk here.

As such a tiny 0.3ha on-site park doesn't really cut it.

The walk to the nearest significant park is nearly 1km:


1683309759528.png


The nearest Library is 1.7km away; the nearest major supermarket (Highland Farms or Metro) are ~2km away.

Within the context of the above, the site as conceived is ill-thought out.
 
Shouldn’t we be against this because it’s taking over god forbidden employement lands. We are all against development just south of the queens way between islington and Kipling for that reason and the lack of transit. So I’m assuming people are similarly shocked and appalled at this proposal.
We're against it south of The Queensway? Parcel by parcel, it's all changing it. I don't see a massive fight in that area either side of Islington Avenue. That said, this doesn't look like the best plan here.

42
 
Front page story on this: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2023/05/complete-community-proposed-warden-and-401.52429

I just wanted to call out (in a positive sense) that I have noticed the elevator count and 1/100 unit threshold being reported as a policy in articles as of late. This is UT at its best - for an important issue that does not get the political traction it should, reporting on elevator counts like this is one way to help move the needle.

On this development, given the location I find the less than 1 parking space / 2 units surprising. I suppose all these new residents might be one way to increase demand for, and therefore hopefully frequency of, local transit.
 
This "complete community" will be a horrible place to live. Surrounded by industrial uses and auto infrastructure, residents will be trapped in this tiny bubble without a car. Not a smart place to build residential.
The city needs to make some long-term strategic decisions about what employment lands we are going to retain, and what lands we're willing to convert to residential. The reactive, case-by-case application review system we have will be bad for everyone in the long term.
 
Front page story on this: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2023/05/complete-community-proposed-warden-and-401.52429

I just wanted to call out (in a positive sense) that I have noticed the elevator count and 1/100 unit threshold being reported as a policy in articles as of late. This is UT at its best - for an important issue that does not get the political traction it should, reporting on elevator counts like this is one way to help move the needle.
Thanks re: the elevator count mention. After some truly unbelievable ratios in proposals from 2022, we decided we should be noting this all the time — it needs to become part of the conversation!

42
 
The presentation above took place yesterday.

From that:

1694783863459.png


There appear to have been some revisions to the proposal; but these are not yet public in the AIC:

1694784479688.png


There are some new renders:

1694784605914.png



1694784661426.png



1694784720130.png


Revisions have added ~200 units

Parking is now ~1,300 spaces

Questions included - the distance to rapid transit, location of the park, compatibility with employment uses, on-site employment uses.

Comments:

- Density excessive for this footprint.

- Not compatible with surrounding employment use; not enough park, not enough of a network, issues w/wind and windscreens, not a complete community.

- Project doesn't make sense.

- Retail spaces not properly designed, appear to be leftover spaces

- Panel noted the extraordinary distance to the nearest schools.

- Not tenable, isolated, disjointed, hostile to prospective residents.

- Discussion of heavy truck traffic to/from HBC distribution centre.

- LOL, Ralph Giannone went out of his way to say that he thought high density could work in this area; that he liked the idea in theory, and then went on to say his colleagues were too polite and that the plan is utterly horrible.
He feels the only way this can be made to work is by including the properties next to Warden and the site to the south, and they need to be be planned cohesively.

- Pops are laid out illogically, criss-crossed by roads/drives/buildings/desire lines, doesn't look hospitable.

- Dead ends everywhere, retail not viable as envisioned.

My comment- I get Ralph's initial take, but the distance to higher order transit is a real problem here, and not one easily fixed.

- Renders and package not coherent, partially show initial proposal, partially show revised proposal.

- Feels like a gated community, too isolated; doesn't even work as a car-centric community.

- Park feels like an appendage

- Park dedication needs to be closer to 15% than the 9.6% proposed.

- Replacement hotel is good, seniors housing and rental could be good, on the former, the community doesn't seem designed to support that use.


******

Oh wow, the panel just ripped this proposal into shreds.

Summation by the Chair, I've written down, "completely re-think, everything"

Unanimous vote of Non-Support.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top