Toronto 245 Queen Street East | 94.3m | 25s | ONE Properties | Graziani + Corazza

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Please God please let this get built. Queen and Sherbourne really needs some TLC

It does, but what limited renderings so far doesn't cut the mustard - it looks overwrought.

As to neighbourhood change - it is unavoidable, given proximity to the core and the development pressures it faces. I think reasonable mixed-income is what we can hope for.

AoD

 

[zcczcczcc]

I lived at Richmond/Sherbourne for 10 years and agree that this would be great for the area!

Although, I do have to admit the renderings with all the crowds of happy people shopping might be a bit of a stretch

 

[maestro]

Wait until you see the overall plan and not just some snipets of a mall quality street scape.

 

[T-Bor]

Huge improvement - hopefully it wouldn't involve tearing down those heritage buildings along Richmond closer to Ontario street though. 4 acres is a pretty big site

 

[ProjectEnd]

Hmm. Ten(ish) sites in the deal? I wonder if the assembly is something like this?

 

[ksun]

Please God please let this get built. Queen and Sherbourne really needs some TLC

I have been dreaming for this to happen for the past 5 years.
Can they do something about Queen/Jarvis/Richmond as well? that dreadful corner seems to be from another universe....

 

[wolfewood]

I've been located in this neighbourhood for 20 plus years now. Every new condo has improved the area tremendously. This will help immensely. Looking forward to it.

And I doubt you'd feel the same if you were reliant upon the boarding houses that have been shuttered throughout this neighbourhood to "improve the area tremendously" over the last 20 years. No one doubts that a lot of problems come from the concentration of boarding houses, social housing and social services in this neighbourhood. But, as you chose to ignore when responding to me, the problem remains that gentrification isn't solving those problems but pushing them out of the city. And, as so many of us complain about on this forum, suburban areas of Toronto and the outer suburbs are nearly impossible to navigate without a car and are heavily underserved by the various
social services people currently living in this neighbourhood rely upon.

So if we look at this condo from a broader perspective than just the economic benefits it will give to this neighbourhood, it really doesn't look that good (unless one is the type to seriously think pushing homeless people to the suburbs or allowing them to live on the streets in the middle of the winter to freeze in bus shelters is good social policy).

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Maybe it will include some subsidized units. Do we know enough at this point to formulate a strong opinion on its negative impact?

 

[wolfewood]

Maybe it will include some subsidized units. Do we know enough at this point to formulate a strong opinion on its negative impact?

Would it really matter? The vast majority of the 1730 units proposed will remain market condos but let's generously assume 10% are subsidized (which is the maximum I've seen proposed as a potential city policy and would see 173 built). That would be eaten up instantly by the backlog of people attempting to get into TCHC buildings (which is, at minimum, 77,000 households as of September 2014 according to the Star).

Also, I don't know what the average rent for a subsidized unit is but I doubt it would still be low enough for many of those living in this neighbourhood to afford. As I've been saying, the continual closing of the rooming houses to literally sit empty (as the former hotel on the southwest corner of Queen and Sherbourne has for years) is creating an actual crisis in this neighbourhood for those who can't afford the gentrification process. It's a problem that goes back to the 90s and it's a problem that's getting worse because gentrification is finally happening here.

And again, it is undeniable that gentrification will do the neighbourhood good economically but we're rapidly displacing incredibly vulnerable people from places they've inhabited for years, if not decades, and we're doing nothing to even aid their transition to other neighbourhoods and when we're actively shuttering shelters like the proposed closure of 400-500 shelter beds on George Street, or the 125 we lost at McCaul and College in April. The city might be planning to move the homeless to shelters in other wards of the city but the services aren't there and, as we saw when someone really proposed a shelter in Oakwood and the fake proposal in Leaside, people aren't just going to let shelters arrive without a fight. I certainly wouldn't be shocked if the city fails to replace the shelter beds it has closed.

 

[maestro]

The neighbourhood is inundated by non profit housing. Some more market rate housing mixing in will only be good. WAM builds investment properties. The majority if not all units should be rentals. There definitely is a cap on how much they could charge here.

 

[Edward Skira]

So if we look at this condo from a broader perspective than just the economic benefits it will give to this neighbourhood, it really doesn't look that good (unless one is the type to seriously think pushing homeless people to the suburbs or allowing them to live on the streets in the middle of the winter to freeze in bus shelters is good social policy).

As maestro said this area has more of its share of homes for the poor. Three shelters facing Moss Park plus a few others nearby. Plus all the city housing extending north and east. Surely mixing up the incomes of people living here can only be a good thing as the shelters and city housing are going nowhere anytime soon.

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Adding some new income brackets will only increase the money going into local retail in those parts. Potentially increasing employment opportunities

 

[ksun]

And I doubt you'd feel the same if you were reliant upon the boarding houses that have been shuttered throughout this neighbourhood to "improve the area tremendously" over the last 20 years. No one doubts that a lot of problems come from the concentration of boarding houses, social housing and social services in this neighbourhood. But, as you chose to ignore when responding to me, the problem remains that gentrification isn't solving those problems but pushing them out of the city. And, as so many of us complain about on this forum, suburban areas of Toronto and the outer suburbs are nearly impossible to navigate without a car and are heavily underserved by the various social services people currently living in this neighbourhood rely upon.

So if we look at this condo from a broader perspective than just the economic benefits it will give to this neighbourhood, it really doesn't look that good (unless one is the type to seriously think pushing homeless people to the suburbs or allowing them to live on the streets in the middle of the winter to freeze in bus shelters is good social policy).

I think you are been dramatic here.
Gentrification isn't pushing them out of the city - the city doesn't ends at Sherbourne st on the east, does it? The issue is Sherbourne and Queen is take an unfairly high share of social housing/poverty, which is not good for the neighbourhood, nor for the city as a whole, nor for the poor people. If the poor always see nothing but poverty and drug abuse surrounding them, there is no hope for them. This is why such social problems should be spread out a bit. You don't want to have 6 homeless shelters congregating on 0.6 sk miles. That doesn't solve the problem, if not exacerbate it.

I don't think "various social services" are exclusive to downtown, and downtown is definitely not the only place that is livable without a car. Maybe social services should be spread more evenly too, especially to some of the current better neighbourhood, such as the Annex, Yorkville, Rosedale, Casa Loma, Leslieville, King West, Deer Park, Yonge/Eg, etc, so that they all have their fair share of social housing? I certainly won't consider that pushing out the poor. What makes it so important for downtown east to have such a high concentration? Toronto isn't just downtown and the outer suburbs. There are many areas in between. In the end, no particularly neighbourhood in Toronto deserves a reputation for being the hotbed of poverty or crime like Moss Park.

We all advocate mixed income neighbourhood, which I agree, but is Moss Park really mix income?

 

[DSC]

Hmm. Ten(ish) sites in the deal? I wonder if the assembly is something like this?

I understand the site also includes the ex-Schnitzel Queen building west of McFarrens Lane (and more??)

 

[wolfewood]

As maestro said this area has more of its share of homes for the poor. Three shelters facing Moss Park plus a few others nearby. Plus all the city housing extending north and east. Surely mixing up the incomes of people living here can only be a good thing as the shelters and city housing are going nowhere anytime soon.

Mixed housing sounds good in theory but in general usage it is not uncommon for redevelopments like Regent Park to result in a reduction in social housing. I haven't done anything approaching real research into the topic but, of the projects I know of, only Alexandra Park here in Toronto has not resulted in a reduction in subsidized housing units and even a slight increase. In most cases, redevelopment projects result in a static number of social housing units (which are rebuilt to higher standards, yes, but do not solve the housing crisis) or even reduction to facilitate the gentrification of the neighbourhood.

I think you are been dramatic here.
Gentrification isn't pushing them out of the city - the city doesn't ends at Sherbourne st on the east, does it? The issue is Sherbourne and Queen is take an unfairly high share of social housing/poverty, which is not good for the neighbourhood, nor for the city as a whole, nor for the poor people. If the poor always see nothing but poverty and drug abuse surrounding them, there is no hope for them. This is why such social problems should be spread out a bit. You don't want to have 6 homeless shelters congregating on 0.6 sk miles. That doesn't solve the problem, if not exacerbate it.

I don't think "various social services" are exclusive to downtown, and downtown is definitely not the only place that is livable without a car. Maybe social services should be spread more evenly too, especially to some of the current better neighbourhood, such as the Annex, Yorkville, Rosedale, Casa Loma, Leslieville, King West, Deer Park, Yonge/Eg, etc, so that they all have their fair share of social housing? I certainly won't consider that pushing out the poor. What makes it so important for downtown east to have such a high concentration? Toronto isn't just downtown and the outer suburbs. There are many areas in between. In the end, no particularly neighbourhood in Toronto deserves a reputation for being the hotbed of poverty or crime like Moss Park.

We all advocate mixed income neighbourhood, which I agree, but is Moss Park really mix income?

I actually think you're making part of my point but missing my issue with this proposal, and downtown east proposals in general. Yes, the city doesn't end at Sherbourne. Yes, social services should be expanded to other parts of the city and yes, the downtown east should not contain the majority of the city's shelters. The problem is that this is how things are right now and there aren't concrete plans to change that before the redevelopment begins. I might feel better if we had already built shelters and new services in other parts of the inner city, let alone the inner suburbs and outer municipalities but we're actually closing shelters in downtown and we're struggling to replace the closed beds 1 for 1, let alone making up for the constant demand that sees shelters operating at 90%+ every night. Development brings new residents who complain about the problems of the shelters so the shelters are gradually shuttered. No one wants a shelter in their neighbourhood so few are built, if at all. It's not sustainable policy and the pressure to gentrify east downtown is only going to make this worse.