Toronto 340 Mill Road | 65.19m | 19s | Park Property | BDP Quadrangle

[PMT]

340 MILL RD
Ward 02 - Etob. York District

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. The Application Information Centre allows you to: Search by...

app.toronto.ca

Proposed 19-storey rental residential building on the southerly portion of the subject site, which will provide 191 new rental residential units through an addition of 16,915 m2 residential GFA. An existing 19-storey retail residential building is located on the northern portion of the site.

 

[PMT]

Preliminary Report:

Agenda Item History - 2020.EY13.7

 

[WislaHD]

Can't really complain about the increased density deep in Etobicoke

 

[interchange42]

Can't really complain about the increased density deep in Etobicoke

Deep in… or on the outer edge of? This building backs on the Etobicoke Creek and therefore Mississauga is directly on the other side of the ravine. Point taken though, it's good to see infill development on the edges of the 416, not just the centre.

42

 

[innsertnamehere]

Although technically in Etobicoke this is essentially Mississauga. TTC service is a single bus line that ends at the Burnhamthorpe Loop about 200m east of the site. The bus stop directly outside is a MiWay stop only.

 

[interchange42]

Although technically in Etobicoke this is essentially Mississauga. TTC service is a single bus line that ends at the Burnhamthorpe Loop about 200m east of the site. The bus stop directly outside is a MiWay stop only.

Residents here don't and won't pay property taxes to Mississauga, so no, this is not essentially Mississauga. The Burnhamthorpe 50's last stop is a just short walk east. The bus, however, is infrequent, the suburban development on either side of Burnhamthorpe in the area having gradually lost population over the last few decades, a standard yellow belt issue in the 416. Meanwhile, MiWay buses cannot pick up eastbound passengers at Mill, only drop them. MiWay can only pick up westbound riders at Mill.

42

 

[Jorpaz]

340 MILL RD
Ward 02 - Etob. York District

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. The Application Information Centre allows you to: Search by...

app.toronto.ca

View attachment 196821

Seems like another terrible decision on the growth of Toronto. I'm sure the property owners in the area don't want years of construction and a huge tower in the midst of a beautiful wood area, creek and also more traffic congestion... I hope this development never gets off the ground. terrible news for the area, I can only assume it's all about Money and somebody is going to get rich and not care one bit about the residents or community.... Leave the area alone.

 

[interchange42]

Seems like another terrible decision on the growth of Toronto. I'm sure the property owners in the area don't want years of construction and a huge tower in the midst of a beautiful wood area, creek and also more traffic congestion... I hope this development never gets off the ground. terrible news for the area, I can only assume it's all about Money and somebody is going to get rich and not care one bit about the residents or community.... Leave the area alone.

This is the kind of infill development we need to make Toronto more livable and efficient. The population has got to be there for the Burnhamthorpe bus to come more frequently, for example. They've also gotta be there if you want retail to flourish in the area, for schools to not close down, etc. In the meantime, every new multi-unit residential building represents less farmland turned into tract subdivisions, less long distance travel across the GTA, less pollution, etc. Sometimes you have to put up with a few years of construction so that you'll have a better city for years to come.

42

 

[Jorpaz]

This is the kind of infill development we need to make Toronto more livable and efficient. The population has got to be there for the Burnhamthorpe bus to come more frequently, for example. They've also gotta be there if you want retail to flourish in the area, for schools to not close down, etc. In the meantime, every new multi-unit residential building represents less farmland turned into tract subdivisions, less long distance travel across the GTA, less pollution, etc. Sometimes you have to put up with a few years of construction so that you'll have a better city for years to come.

42

nonsense and utter nonsense.. Do you expect people to believe that political BS you're spinning... come on be honest, this has nothing to do with community.. Why don't people just admit it's a huge money maker for either a group of people or persons or developers....This has nothing to do with community, In fact it's the complete opposite.. This area is thriving and doesn't need more traffic, construction and terrible designs.. You really think people would believe the TTC would add more busses to the Burnhamthorpe 50 route... again, utter nonsense, if anything, after the COVID crisis ends the TTC will have less of everything... Lets hope the COVID crisis puts a halt on this terrible development. The schools in this area will never close down... Silverthorn Highschool has been around since the 70's, with student population abundance. I guess concrete and glass is a nicer way to live instead of trees and wildlife..... Oh well, it's money that is driving this truly awful decision... I've spoken to hundreds of people in this area and not one of them said.. YES, build another apartment building... in fact they were surprised and I'm hoping this might go to the people deciding with a vote on moving forward or stopping the entire bad idea from happening........ regards, I'm sure the developers will get their ugly new building and the people in the area will just have to suck it up.... That's life I suppose, but please don't spew out any more lies about helping community et et.. it's insulting to all of us educated people who live around the area.

 

[interchange42]

nonsense and utter nonsense.. Do you expect people to believe that political BS you're spinning... come on be honest, this has nothing to do with community.. Why don't people just admit it's a huge money maker for either a group of people or persons or developers....This has nothing to do with community, In fact it's the complete opposite.. This area is thriving and doesn't need more traffic, construction and terrible designs.. You really think people would believe the TTC would add more busses to the Burnhamthorpe 50 route... again, utter nonsense, if anything, after the COVID crisis ends the TTC will have less of everything... Lets hope the COVID crisis puts a halt on this terrible development. The schools in this area will never close down... Silverthorn Highschool has been around since the 70's, with student population abundance. I guess concrete and glass is a nicer way to live instead of trees and wildlife..... Oh well, it's money that is driving this truly awful decision... I've spoken to hundreds of people in this area and not one of them said.. YES, build another apartment building... in fact they were surprised and I'm hoping this might go to the people deciding with a vote on moving forward or stopping the entire bad idea from happening........ regards, I'm sure the developers will get their ugly new building and the people in the area will just have to suck it up.... That's life I suppose, but please don't spew out any more lies about helping community et et.. it's insulting to all of us educated people who live around the area.

Of course the company that owns the property wants to maximize the value of it, that's the way the system works, I am not trying to suggest otherwise. What I am saying is that that aligns with goals the City and Province have to house more people on less land. It works for the property owner, and it works for the environment. This is replacing a surface parking lot, too, so don't go bleating on about trees and wildlife as if this will be a detriment to either. Development isn't going away, so it's either build on sites like this, or farmland becomes more tract housing out in the fringes, and that is a far worse harm to the environment, so you and all the other neighbours in the area can quit cloaking your fear of change and a couple years of construction in some kind of a fake concern for wildlife.

In terms of City services, the TTC, schools, etc., everything we pay taxes and/or user fees on runs more smoothly when there's a minimum threshold population to support them. Yes, the TTC ridership will have weird numbers until we are out from under the COVID cloud, but we're not planning for a COVID future, we're planning for a post-COVID one. This building and others planned in the area represent new sources of revenue for those services through the new people they'll bring to it. Single family neighbourhoods everywhere gradually experience population loss. When they're new, like the area was when my family moved into Markland back in 1968, every house had kids in them. As areas age, so do the kids who move on, and while some empty nesters move out of the houses, many linger for years, bringing the average population down. The only way to get back to former numbers is to build new housing.

Anyway, the developers will get some form of this proposal approved by the City. There may be some tweaks to the plan, it could be a little shorter, there could be a reconfiguration of the driveways, etc., but this will go through. If you're really concerned that it be built right, then if there are still community meetings to be had, go out and make specific, reasonable suggestions as to what about the plan could be improved. If you're not interested in that, then don't waste your time.

42

 

[salsa]

Of course the company that owns the property wants to maximize the value of it, that's the way the system works, I am not trying to suggest otherwise. What I am saying is that that aligns with goals the City and Province have to house more people on less land. It works for the property owner, and it works for the environment. This is replacing a surface parking lot, too, so don't go bleating on about trees and wildlife as if this will be a detriment to either. Development isn't going away, so it's either build on sites like this, or farmland becomes more tract housing out in the fringes, and that is a far worse harm to the environment, so you and all the other neighbours in the area can quit cloaking your fear of change and a couple years of construction in some kind of a fake concern for wildlife.

In terms of City services, the TTC, schools, etc., everything we pay taxes and/or user fees on runs more smoothly when there's a minimum threshold population to support them. Yes, the TTC ridership will have weird numbers until we are out from under the COVID cloud, but we're not planning for a COVID future, we're planning for a post-COVID one. This building and others planned in the area represent new sources of revenue for those services through the new people they'll bring to it. Single family neighbourhoods everywhere gradually experience population loss. When they're new, like the area was when my family moved into Markland back in 1968, every house had kids in them. As areas age, so do the kids who move on, and while some empty nesters move out of the houses, many linger for years, bringing the average population down. The only way to get back to former numbers is to build new housing.

Anyway, the developers will get some form of this proposal approved by the City. There may be some tweaks to the plan, it could be a little shorter, there could be a reconfiguration of the driveways, etc., but this will go through. If you're really concerned that it be built right, then if there are still community meetings to be had, go out and make specific, reasonable suggestions as to what about the plan could be improved. If you're not interested in that, then don't waste your time.

42

When you consider the existing context, it's hard to make a case that this proposal somehow represents a dramatic change to the neighbourhood.

 

[concrete_and_light]

I've spoken to hundreds of people in this area and not one of them said.. YES, build another apartment building...

Thank you for making it clear how much you resent apartment buildings and the people who live in them. Where do you propose people not lucky enough to be able to afford a house live? I guess you just want them to scrape away and struggle to live somewhere else — somewhere less nice, maybe near a polluting highway, somewhere that's more suited to their lower station where you don't have to see them. Silly me, poor people don't deserve to live in pleasant wooded areas by a creek, those places are reserved for homeowners!!

God forbid they live in your neighbourhood and you have to see them and be in a community with them, all those people on whose backs, on whose labour, on whose exploitation our society rests on as rich property owners get to live out their lives in their beautiful wooded enclaves as their assets they were lucky enough to be able to afford accumulate value.

I'm sure the property owners in the area don't want...

Thank you again for making it clear that your idea of our society puts property owners and what they want above everyone else. A proud colonial tradition. Quite frankly you're the last people we should be listening to: you're already secure and safe and seem shockingly okay with pulling up the ladder after yourself. Selfish property owners have run this city for far too long and all they've done is built a crumbling tower of inequality without vision, without empathy, and without mutual aid. Time for a change.

it's insulting to all of us educated people who live around the area.

Once again just displaying clear brazen classism. What's insulting is your lack of humanity. I would have hoped your education would have given you a heart.

Are developers and the big-business model of development problematic? Are their intentions corrupted by the same financialized housing market dynamics that create your self-centred property-focused society? Yeah definitely. How about we build affordable social housing in your area instead? At the very least we could raise your taxes in order to support the exploited hard-working people who you can't bear to have living in your neighbourhood. How about that? Are you doing anything to foster a more equal society and change these destructive financialized housing dynamics or just organizing with your neighbours to keep poor people out?

 

[Towered]

When you consider the existing context, it's hard to make a case that this proposal somehow represents a dramatic change to the neighbourhood.

View attachment 252792

Ooo, this will potentially urbanize that intersection quite nicely. Bring it on!

 

[PMT]

New docs posted September 2:

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. The Application Information Centre allows you to: Search by...

app.toronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

Final Report, Approval Recommended to the February 24th meeting of EYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ey/bgrd/backgroundfile-221812.pdf

From the report: (pretty good benefits for the community and existing residents)

Additionally, there will the standard conveyance of lands to the TRCA for ravine-abutting lands, and a stewardship plan must be prepared for same.