254 King Street East | 120.65m | 36s | Fitzrovia | Turner Fleischer

mcornett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
391
Reaction score
1,389
I truly do not understand this settlement. It's bamboozling. The height is way out of context for a historical district, the heritage preservation is the bare minimum, and there is almost nothing in the way of City benefits to justify the density. To boot, there are recently approved, shorter, and way nicer projects nearby! 158 Front Street is two 26-storey towers. Can't help but wonder what this means for Bauhaus Condos slightly east on King, or even worse, the crappy G+C redevelopment slated for the Staples property.

I also had a soft spot for the existing courtyard. I know it was mostly a parking lot, but it had such interesting light fixtures and views.

Le sigh.
 

cd concept

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 4, 2014
Messages
1,866
Reaction score
883
I wish they would dress this rendering up a little more with details than what it looks like now . Just a bunch of boxes stacked on top of each other !
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
16,159
Reaction score
13,278
The public park will be nice - but yes, the height is too much. This area has shifted from an ~18 storey limit to now 36 storeys over the last 5 years. I don't have a problem with the height, but the built form of this thing is ridiculous. Same thing with Time & Space - way too bulky and overbearing for their heights.

i guess the consolation is that the densities are pretty high. Lots of new housing for people.
 

maestro

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,204
Reaction score
2,125
I find it clumsy and generic. Old facades slapped onto a glass box. Two more boxes plopped on top of the first one. Rudimentary white striped pattern glued onto the side of the boxes.
 

Marcanadian

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
3,973
Reaction score
10,460
Additional docs posted:

175602
175604
175607
175606
175601
175603
175605


 

Labyrinth

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 18, 2016
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
The rumour I heard about this was that it was settled quickly by the local Councillor at the time, Lucy Troisi, who sided with the developers against the advice from City planning. Despite the earlier rejection from council, she basically rolled over without a fight, and since City staff are required to do the bidding of the councillor when directed, a settlement was struck and that was the end of that.

You will recall that Lucy Troisi was appointed councillor in 2017 after the passing of Pam McConnell. City Council chose her with a vote that was split along ideological lines, with the traditionally conservative councillors supporting her, while McConnell had always been very left-leaning. Troisi was also a vocal supporter of Mayor Tory and had his backing. What's important to note is that Troisi was not democratically elected and did not, in fact, have the support of the local population, who had endorsed McConnell's chief of staff (her lack of support is evident in how she placed a very distant third in the 2018 election). A bit of a shame to follow McConnell's legacy with Troisi, but politics interfered, and alas, we get buildings like this that were approved.

Again, emphasizing that this is just rumours....I have no hard evidence other than word of mouth.
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,923
Reaction score
12,338
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
The rumour I heard about this was that it was settled quickly by the local Councillor at the time, Lucy Troisi, who sided with the developers against the advice from City planning. Despite the earlier rejection from council, she basically rolled over without a fight, and since City staff are required to do the bidding of the councillor when directed, a settlement was struck and that was the end of that.

You will recall that Lucy Troisi was appointed councillor in 2017 after the passing of Pam McConnell. City Council chose her with a vote that was split along ideological lines, with the traditionally conservative councillors supporting her, while McConnell had always been very left-leaning. Troisi was also a vocal supporter of Mayor Tory and had his backing. What's important to note is that Troisi was not democratically elected and did not, in fact, have the support of the local population, who had endorsed McConnell's chief of staff (her lack of support is evident in how she placed a very distant third in the 2018 election). A bit of a shame to follow McConnell's legacy with Troisi, but politics interfered, and alas, we get buildings like this that were approved.

Again, emphasizing that this is just rumours....I have no hard evidence other than word of mouth.
This was approved (unanimously) during the "Lyin' Lucy" era but individual Councillors do not actually have the power to approve settlements. The settlement for this was approved by Council (unanimously) in March 2018. The fact that the local Councillor is in favour certainly helps but it is not a 100% guarantee. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.CC38.8
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
25,062
Reaction score
25,984
Location
by the Humber
This was approved (unanimously) during the "Lyin' Lucy" era but individual Councillors do not actually have the power to approve settlements. The settlement for this was approved by Council (unanimously) in March 2018. The fact that the local Councillor is in favour certainly helps but it is not a 100% guarantee. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.CC38.8
The unwritten rule is that the local Councillor has to object for something to receive blowback: if the local Councillor recommends a development for approval, the rest typically line up to vote in the affirmative as that's what they expect when they recommend a new development in their ward. There have been exceptions, not many though. Having Troisi go against City Staff recommendations, however, probably should have triggered some debate and 'No' votes.

42
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,923
Reaction score
12,338
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Confidential info now opened. Here is some of it: From: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2021.CC32.8

The confidential instructions to staff in Confidential Attachment 1 to the report (April 28, 2021) from the City Solicitor were adopted by City Council and are now public as follows:



1. City Council accept the Settlement Offer set out in Confidential Appendices A and B to the report (April 28, 2021) from the City Solicitor and City Council authorize the City Solicitor to take all necessary steps to give effect to a settlement.

2. City Council authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate City Staff to advise the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal that the City supports the revision to the development proposal as set out in Confidential Appendices A and B to the report (April 28, 2021) from the City Solicitor provided the following conditions are met:

a. prior to issuance of any final order of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal approving the revised development, the owner shall:

i. submit a draft by-law Zoning By-law in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; and

ii. enter into a Section 37 Agreement with the City, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, which secures the following:

A. a total cash contribution of $5.4 million dollars ($5,400,000.00) to be paid prior to issuance of any above-grade building permit; of that total, $400 000 shall be allocated for capital improvements to new or existing affordable housing or community and cultural space in the subject ward; the remaining $5 million will be allocated for community benefits in the vicinity of the subject lands, with specific allocation be determined by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, and specified in the Section 37 Agreement; and this amount reflects the $5 million already secured in March 2018 as part of the original settlement as well as an additional $400,000;

B. the cash contribution referenced above shall be increased by upwards indexing in accordance with the Construction Price Index for the Toronto CMA, reported by Statistics Canada or its successor, calculated from the date the Section 37 Agreement is registered on title to the date payment is made;

C. provision of a minimum of 10 percent three-bedroom units and a minimum of 30 percent two-bedroom units;

D. prior to the commencement of any excavation and shoring work, the owner will submit a Construction Management Plan and Community Consultation Strategy, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the Ward Councillor, and thereafter shall implement the plan during the course of construction; the Construction Management Plan will include, but not be limited to, the size and location of construction staging areas, location and function of gates, information on concrete pouring, lighting details, construction vehicle parking and queuing locations, refuse storage, site security, site supervisor contact information, a communication strategy with the surrounding community, and any other matters requested by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning or the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with the Ward Councillor;


E. prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the site, no less than 470.5 square metres of unencumbered parkland shall be conveyed to the City, located on the north side of King Street East between the existing buildings identified as 254 King Street East and 266 King Street East, pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act; these lands shall be unencumbered and meet Parks, Forestry and Recreation's environmental requirements and base park conditions, as set out in the Memorandum to Community Planning and City Legal provided by Planning, Design and Development Parks, Forestry and Recreation dated September 27, 2016, to the satisfaction of the General Manager, Parks Forestry and Recreation;

F. prior to the issuance of Site Plan Approval, the owner shall construct, to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, an accessible public pedestrian walkway, on a private sidewalk along the south side of the proposed vehicular driveway through the building, which must abut the proposed public park and will be subject to a pedestrian public access easement extending between Princess Street and Ontario Street; the specific location, configuration and design of the pedestrian walkway shall be determined in the context of a site plan approval pursuant to Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act, 2006, and secured in a Site Plan Agreement with the City; and

G. design and financially secure any improvements to the municipal infrastructure, should it be determined that upgrades are required to support the development, according to the Site Servicing and Stormwater Management Report accepted by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, all to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services.
 

Top