Toronto 25 Old York Mills | 41.7m | 11s | Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church | Arcadis

* Sigh *.

I'm the first to defend Planning when I think they have a leg to stand on in defending an existing policy guideline..............but not here.

This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of NYCC (opposing the one at OLT)


The last five words below, merit a certain gesture:

1679580076346.png

**

Below, Planning may have a point on the childcare siting, I'd have to reflect further,

1679580150910.png


**

1679580205959.png


Disagree w/staff here; if there critique were limited to the streetwall on the York Mills facing side, I could at least see the argument.......but as presented, this represents gross overreach that the OLT ought to squash.

***

Now here's something you almost never see..........the TRCA bent over on their beloved buffer zone, in exchange for some changes to the topography here.

1679580358021.png

If you can talk the Authority into that.........what is Planning doing here?
 
Last edited:
This development seems to encapsulate the big conflict that we're dealing with as a city that's playing out in hundreds of development proposals and thousands of minor variance applications. Official policies are in favour of preserving the "character" of existing neighbourhoods, as if subdivisions of single family housing are the greatest achievement ever in city building. This sort of "character" must be preserved according to policy, and all development must respect it.

Yet this "character" often means streets lacking in vibrancy due to low density and a lack of diversity in the residents that live there. It's not conducive to having a large amount of pedestrian-friendly business and institutional space in the area and sustaining a good-quality transit system. It's too common of a built form in North America to be particularly interesting, and it makes housing less affordable and attainable. It means more homeless people as demand for housing isn't satisfied and pushes all buildings' rents higher to the point that the group of citizens that can't afford any housing at all progressively increases in size. That's easily noticeable with the increased homeless population in the city.

If there's potential for an evolution away from such lousy neighbourhood "character" through private sector development, it should be seized. At the very least, we need more acknowledgements in Toronto's zoning and planning policies that neighbourhoods can have different housing types on the same blocks in harmony (and not just single family housing); and that neighbourhoods can grow, evolve, and diversify in positive ways, such that there's no need to preserve their existing aesthetic character and single family housing built form at all costs.
 
junctionist said:
This development seems to encapsulate the big conflict that we're dealing with as a city that's playing out in hundreds of development proposals and thousands of minor variance applications. Official policies are in favour of preserving the "character" of existing neighbourhoods, as if subdivisions of single family housing are the greatest achievement ever in city building. This sort of "character" must be preserved according to policy, and all development must respect it.

Yet this "character" often means streets lacking in vibrancy due to low density and a lack of diversity in the residents that live there. It's not conducive to having a large amount of pedestrian-friendly business and institutional space in the area and sustaining a good-quality transit system. It's too common of a built form in North America to be particularly interesting, and it makes housing less affordable and attainable. It means more homeless people as demand for housing isn't satisfied and pushes all buildings' rents higher to the point that the group of citizens that can't afford any housing at all progressively increases in size. That's easily noticeable with the increased homeless population in the city.

If there's potential for an evolution away from such lousy neighbourhood "character" through private sector development, it should be seized. At the very least, we need more acknowledgements in Toronto's zoning and planning policies that neighbourhoods can have different housing types on the same blocks in harmony (and not just single family housing); and that neighbourhoods can grow, evolve, and diversify in positive ways, such that there's no need to preserve their existing aesthetic character and single family housing built form at all costs.
Click to expand...

Personally, I wish this community didn't even exist at all, a good chunk of it is naturally in the regulatory floodplain; by all rights, it should have been bought out as valley parkland after Hurricane Hazel in '54.
The fact it exists has led to all sorts of bad infrastructure choices and investments from channelizing the river, to the huge dam up stream. to a both less interesting and less efficient road grid.
Ah well, so much proverbial water under the bridge.

***

To address @junctionist 's comment above head-on; while I'm no fan of this community, I don't see an inherent problem with the idea of 'neighbourhood character' guidelines or with guidelines that seek to preserve livability in terms of shadows/sunlight etc.

To me, the problem here is an unreasonable take by Planning on those guidelines.

Those guidelines should be about community interiors, not main streets/arterials.

Those guidelines should be about human-scale/illusion of same when walking along the street, not a rigid height limit.

This height in the middle of single-family homes would be a might bizarre; but it's not. This is essentially fronting York Mills Road, across from mid-rise, a block from the subway and from much larger towers approved right across Yonge.
This development makes a solid effort at transition and being respectful of its surroundings; and outside of the idea of a slightly lower street wall on York Mills (not lower height); I'm really challenged to understand any valid argument against this proposal, in this location.
 
streetsoftoronto.com

Church condo project has locals concerned over tree loss and traffic

A Hogg's Hollow church’s plan to redevelop its land into a condo and new place of worship is being appealed at the Ontario Land Tribunal
streetsoftoronto.com streetsoftoronto.com

A Hogg’s Hollow church’s proposal to redevelop its land into a condo tower and new place of worship is being appealed at the Ontario Land Tribunal as residents continue to express concerns about the project’s density and possible environmental impacts.

In July of 2022, the Goldberg Group, on behalf of the church, submitted a development application to the City of Toronto to demolish the existing religious facility, which dates back to the mid-’60s, and replace it with a 12-storey, 98-unit building. Then, this January, the church launched an appeal to the OLT, the independent provincial adjudicative tribunal that settles development disputes.

“The application was pushed to OLT because the city did not give a determination in a timely manner,” Pirjo Roininen, congregational chair of the Agricola Finnish Lutheran Church, told Post City in an email. Under Ontario’s Planning Act, property owners can appeal to the OLT if, for example, a municipality fails to make a decision about a rezoning application within 90 days.

Roininen declined to comment further on the development proposal. However, last summer, the congregational chair told Post City that the project could create a new cultural hub for Toronto’s Finnish community and also provide amenities for the local community at large. In addition to dwellings, the application proposes 566 square metres of church and multifunctional space, 915 square metres of “commercial community space,” and a 409-square-metre daycare.

More than one member of the community, though, expressed concern to Post City about the proposed condo tower’s height of 12 storeys.

“It’s more than what we would’ve expected,” said Nick Dhillon, president of the York Mills Valley Association, a neighbourhood group that has been granted party status for the OLT hearing. “We thought it should be shorter, especially because it’s adjacent to residential homes,” he added.

Shannon Rancourt of the Hoggs Hollow Tree Watch, a local grassroots environmental group that she co-founded with neighbour Laura Lamarche, in 2020, agrees. “What I would be super happy with… is a lower-rise [building] that doesn’t encroach on the park and preserves the mature trees that are presently in place,” she said, suggesting six or seven storeys is more appropriate for the site, which neighbours Jolly Miller Park.

According to the arborist report included with the development application, 10 trees would be removed for construction, while another seven would be injured. Six would be relocated. “Our major concern is several mature, healthy trees will come down,” Rancourt told Post City. “What that causes is… there’s no roots to suck up water, there’s no buffer any longer between the Don River, which often floods,” she said. “It’s dangerous.”

Traffic is another worry. There are plans to place the entrance to the two levels of underground parking, which would include 86 spots, on Campbell Crescent, something Dhillon would like to see changed to Old York Mills Road. Also with traffic in mind, the YMVA opposes commercial space in general and retail in particular for the development site.

Rancourt acknowledges that the city needs more housing to address the affordability crisis but suggests there are other factors — such as the city’s tree canopy — to weigh when deciding how much density is appropriate for a site. “It’s on a subway line; it’s a great location,” she says, “but I also think there has to be some consideration for what we lose.”
Click to expand...
 
Just want to say, I live nearby and am in full support of this project. I can agree with clarifying what the specific use of some of the non-residential components of this development are, but I absolutely despise the idea of this breaking the 'character' of the neighbourhood. What character? Our area is effectively devoid of character, I hardly know my neighbours, because when I go for a walk outside, I hardly see anyone to even get to know. You can't protect character that doesn't exist, build it and get some more childcare spaces in so that parents in the area have a chance to walk their kids to daycare.
 
Finally, this one was approved at Council, by way of adoption of a settlement offer.

* Note that there are other parties at the OLT, not just the City and the applicant.

The terms of which are now public.


Of note:

The height is reduced by one storey, but due to reduction of the height of the first and second floors the height reduction is somewhat greater, we're dropping from ~42M to 35.7M (excludes MPH) or 41.7M with MPH.

However, the unit count is actually up, and they are family sized units too.

One can see that w/the relaxed standards on angular plane, the floor plates here actually grew; @HousingNowTO will take particular interest in that.

1700155364811.png

1700155430657.png

1700155464335.png


1700155524542.png

1700155552417.png


1700155668440.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top