toaster29
Active Member
Yes, totally agree.
Also Re: French boards, they share a secondary school that is very close to this site, so I don't think either would be interested in this location.
Toronto 2280 Dundas West | 127.5m | 38s | Choice Properties | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter smably
- Start date
Also Re: French boards, they share a secondary school that is very close to this site, so I don't think either would be interested in this location.
Amare
Senior Member
On a bit of an unrelated, but general note, I wish there were that many rights of refusals put in place anytime the province wanted to sell off publicly owned assets. The fact that this property has to pass through all those checks is pretty impressive to say the least.
vic
Senior Member
Saw this on Facebook:
I watched the community meeting tonight on Webex. Many people expressed that they had liked the original plan but indicated that they were discouraged by the new plan that does not include the school. A number of people emphasized how impressed they were by the original plan's connection to transit with a bridge beside the rail tracks to Bloor GO station, and the future connection to Dundas West station there. Others were looking forward to better addressing pedestrian needs at Bloor and Dundas specifically, and disappointed that without the northern property that nothing could be done there.
Choice Properties' head on this project, Alexis Johansen, did say that negotiations were continuing regarding the school, and that they were going well, and that this new plan allows flexibility of moving the school into one corner in the southeast of the site if they are able to get the northern lands…
…but never made it clear why there was a resubmission without the the northern parcel. Not that there can't be some reasonable speculation about that, as far as I'm concerned. Possibly it's a tactic by Choice to tell the school boards "If you want a new state-of-the-art school, then get serious, because we could proceed without you". That's uninformed speculation on my part, but the fact that negotiations have taken so long now (4 to 5 years) I would not be surprised if Choice is frustrated with the speed at which they are occurring, and it makes me wonder if the school boards are overreaching what they expect for the land swap. Dunno. (If others want to offer other speculations as to why the resubmission, go for it! I'm not saying that I believe mine is the right reason.)
No locals attending the meeting were particularly NIMBY, at least not in principle regarding the intensification of the site, there seems to be agreement that it's good to redevelop here. Some locals were concerned about the transition to the neighbourhood to the south, buildings too large planned right next to 2-storey homes… I haven't looked at those details per se, but I'm still hoping that the school property issue will be resolved, and then I assume that the transition at the south end will be ameliorated by moving the school next to the homes.
Many attending the meeting asked about community benefits, like sustainability measures in the new buildings, especially mentioned affordable housing, including for specific groups like artists who currently make up a lot of the community but who are finding it difficult to stay there now because of rising costs, and also more than one local asked about the pedestrian bridge across the tracks to the Junction Triangle area along Sterling that was pencilled in to the original plan but is missing from the new plan.
Choice said repeatedly that it was too early to get into specifics about the community benefits, and the planner from the City mentioned more than once that were are dealing with a new planning regime now thanks to the province that severely limits what developers are required to spend in that regard. I think people are frustrated that about 5 years into the process it's still "too early" to talk benefits, but the City Planner is right, everything has changed. (I blame the school boards for this dragging on so long.)
Regarding the pedestrian bridge it was mentioned that it needs buy-in from property owners east of the tracks (and it was insinuated that there was no buy-in) and also that a champion for such a project was needed. Certainly Gord Perks has never championed the bridge. As far as I know, he sees the need for the vast majority of any community benefits to be spent on affordable housing. With the recent changes to the planning system, I'd be very surprised if there's ever money found to bridge the tracks for pedestrians.
People asked a bout timelines, concerned about how long it will take to build this all, but from two very different angles, some saying "do it all ASAP, we have a crisis", some saying "things are already so congested in the area, do it slowly so that we're no overwhelmed". Choice has indicated that about 18 years from when they start they think they might finish on the site… but it's too early to know when they might be able to start.
Come on school boards!!!
42
Choice Properties' head on this project, Alexis Johansen, did say that negotiations were continuing regarding the school, and that they were going well, and that this new plan allows flexibility of moving the school into one corner in the southeast of the site if they are able to get the northern lands…
…but never made it clear why there was a resubmission without the the northern parcel. Not that there can't be some reasonable speculation about that, as far as I'm concerned. Possibly it's a tactic by Choice to tell the school boards "If you want a new state-of-the-art school, then get serious, because we could proceed without you". That's uninformed speculation on my part, but the fact that negotiations have taken so long now (4 to 5 years) I would not be surprised if Choice is frustrated with the speed at which they are occurring, and it makes me wonder if the school boards are overreaching what they expect for the land swap. Dunno. (If others want to offer other speculations as to why the resubmission, go for it! I'm not saying that I believe mine is the right reason.)
No locals attending the meeting were particularly NIMBY, at least not in principle regarding the intensification of the site, there seems to be agreement that it's good to redevelop here. Some locals were concerned about the transition to the neighbourhood to the south, buildings too large planned right next to 2-storey homes… I haven't looked at those details per se, but I'm still hoping that the school property issue will be resolved, and then I assume that the transition at the south end will be ameliorated by moving the school next to the homes.
Many attending the meeting asked about community benefits, like sustainability measures in the new buildings, especially mentioned affordable housing, including for specific groups like artists who currently make up a lot of the community but who are finding it difficult to stay there now because of rising costs, and also more than one local asked about the pedestrian bridge across the tracks to the Junction Triangle area along Sterling that was pencilled in to the original plan but is missing from the new plan.
Choice said repeatedly that it was too early to get into specifics about the community benefits, and the planner from the City mentioned more than once that were are dealing with a new planning regime now thanks to the province that severely limits what developers are required to spend in that regard. I think people are frustrated that about 5 years into the process it's still "too early" to talk benefits, but the City Planner is right, everything has changed. (I blame the school boards for this dragging on so long.)
Regarding the pedestrian bridge it was mentioned that it needs buy-in from property owners east of the tracks (and it was insinuated that there was no buy-in) and also that a champion for such a project was needed. Certainly Gord Perks has never championed the bridge. As far as I know, he sees the need for the vast majority of any community benefits to be spent on affordable housing. With the recent changes to the planning system, I'd be very surprised if there's ever money found to bridge the tracks for pedestrians.
People asked a bout timelines, concerned about how long it will take to build this all, but from two very different angles, some saying "do it all ASAP, we have a crisis", some saying "things are already so congested in the area, do it slowly so that we're no overwhelmed". Choice has indicated that about 18 years from when they start they think they might finish on the site… but it's too early to know when they might be able to start.
Come on school boards!!!
42
Jimto
Active Member
Some of the usual area, noisy NIMBY'ists were busy worrying about the proposed development at 2400-2440 Dundas St West (the Freschco and SDM sites) by Fora Developments. The West Bend Community Association had a meeting at the same time as this one.
ellett44
New Member
Great summary!
I attended the meeting and part of the community group. I think you are quoting me here as I had the opportunity to ask the question about connections to transit, the importance of the bridge and expressed my enthusiasm for the original plan and the proposed density.
I also agree with your assessment about the reapplication as sort of a pressure tactic. But have no insider knowledge. I remain optimistic that the school can get on board as I view this as a win for all parties (developers, school, city and community) with the original plan.
Hopefully a resolution can be had.
Jimto
Active Member
For those "hoping" that the school boards and developer will work together, there is a way to help make this happen. Contact your local school trustee and ask them!
TDSB Debbie King Ward 7, Parkdale-High Park Tel: 416-395-8787 Debbie.King@tdsb.on.ca
TCDSB Teresa Lubinski Ward 4: Parkdale-High Park Phone: 416-512-3404 teresa.lubinski@tcdsb.org
TDSB Debbie King Ward 7, Parkdale-High Park Tel: 416-395-8787 Debbie.King@tdsb.on.ca
TCDSB Teresa Lubinski Ward 4: Parkdale-High Park Phone: 416-512-3404 teresa.lubinski@tcdsb.org
ellett44
New Member
Already contacted both.
Pretty much got stonewalled as this is an active negotiations.
But I remain hopeful!
Well, they cannot answer you for that reason, but it does not hurt to let them know that the community expects them to play ball here, for a far better outcome. Enough calls will make the trustees realize that people might even remember their names in three and-a-half-years (quite a while, I know) when they're running again. If the school boards blow this city-building opportunity, those in charge should feel some electoral wrath.
42
Jimto
Active Member
The school boards are probably least in control of this situation. I think the blame order should be:
1. Developer
2. City/Province/City Councillor
3. TDSB (owners of property but an obligation to sell to other school boards before anyone else)
4. TCDSB (as a tenant, they have most to lose and least to gain)
Having said that, it's always easiest to apply pressure to elected representatives and they have most to gain by acting in a public manner. They may say there is nothing they can do but that's not so. They can introduce a motion at their board meeting or invite a community delegation or speaker. Pressure on them from us will help.
Your blame order doesn't register with me. It is possible that the developer is offering too little… but it's impossible to know that without having a look at the numbers being batted about in the negotiations. The developer will have a lot to gain through the land swap and school rebuild though density-wise, so I've been expecting that they'd be offering something substantial to have it go in their favour. Yes, Gord Perks should be demanding that this all be worked out for the best, so yes please direct letters to his office, but it cannot hurt to aim letters to the school trustees to make sure they know people expect them to play ball here.
42
Jimto
Active Member
I'm puzzled - you essentially just fully agreed with my "blame order"
No, I'm not sure why you have the developer at the top, why you're so certain they are the problem.I'm puzzled - you essentially just fully agreed with my "blame order"
42
Jimto
Active Member
Simple, really:
1. The TCDSB has a perfectly reasonable tenancy on a popular school in a very convenient location for them. Moving to a new location is an unnecessary project for them. Proximity helps slightly but only slightly.
2. The TDSB has a perfectly reasonable tenancy on a school property they own. A move for them is just another complex project.
3. While the City should be more proactive when it comes to urban development, the reality is it's not. Hence, they will only react to development proposals put in front of them.
4. The developer is the only entity involved that can work proactively with all bodies. Maybe using public opinion and support to do their work for them will work in the long term but, in the short term, will do nothing. Public support only appears to be a useful weapon in stopping projects.