Toronto 346 Davenport | 36.27m | 9s | Freed | RAW Design

[interchange42]

A settlement has been ratified at the OMB which drops—

• the building from 10 storeys to 9,
• the height to the top of the mechanical penthouse from 45 m to approximately 36.5
• the units from 35 to 31
• the GFA from 6,281 sq m to 5,390
• the FSI from 6.42 to 5.54 times lot size
• parking spaces from 57 to 40
• other details and
• generally increased setbacks

We don't have updated architectural plans nor renderings, so no front page story yet.

42

 

[PMT]

An SPA was filed in August on the Dev App site:

 

[Brother Jonathan]

Sounds like this building's next door neighbour (348 Davenport) is going to be a city homeless shelter or respite centre. Personally, I support both more shelters and the urbanization of the Annex. I also think this will be an interesting wrinkle for anyone marketing this building. https://twitter.com/joe_cressy/status/956529334205939712

 

[torontologist]

More shelter space is great. I wish that the Annex Residents' Association was just as welcoming to new housing for future generations, in the form of condominiums, as it is to homeless shelters

 

[Downtown Toronto]

348 Davenport was previously purchased in 2014 by an Asian offshore company for $5,500,000. It's been vacant since 2014 and for sale/lease since 2016. Was listed for $7,999,000 multiple times as well as for lease, city records or MLS listing does not indicate sold status, still listed for just a hair under $8 Million as of today. If I had purchased condo units at 342-346 Davenport I would be concerned as it will be located adjacent to a shelter, nothing wrong with a shelter but totally wrong place to put one. It will definitely affect both condo prices not just at 342-346 Davenport but in the immediate area as well, not to mention resale value for neighboring commercial properties.

Joe Cressy News letter released today.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...nnouncement_-_community_letter.pdf?1516895296

 

[ADRM]

but totally wrong place

What is the "right" place?

 

[Downtown Toronto]

What is the "right" place?

Somewhere that doesn't cost $8 Million of tax payer money, even if they purchased it under asking price it's still inappropriate use of public funds. I can name numerous sites in the Annex that could have been purchased if the people in charge did their due diligence. This is government misspending at its best. Unless some philanthropist purchased the site and donated it to the city it's your tax money being misused once again. As I said nothing wrong with a shelter but wrong place.

 

[ProjectEnd]

348 Davenport was previously purchased in 2014 by an Asian offshore company for $5,500,000. It's been vacant since 2014 and for sale/lease since 2016. Was listed for $7,999,000 multiple times as well as for lease, city records or MLS listing does not indicate sold status, still listed for just a hair under $8 Million as of today. If I had purchased condo units at 342-346 Davenport I would be concerned as it will be located adjacent to a shelter, nothing wrong with a shelter but totally wrong place to put one. It will definitely affect both condo prices not just at 342-346 Davenport but in the immediate area as well, not to mention resale value for neighboring commercial properties.

Joe Cressy News letter released today.
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.n...nnouncement_-_community_letter.pdf?1516895296

Sure, if you only look at real estate in terms of an investment vehicle for future profits, then yes, this is the 'wrong' place. I'd argue, however, that communities and the properties that compose them should be about more an just financial value and should reflect the character and composition of a diverse city.

 

[Downtown Toronto]

Sure, if you only look at real estate in terms of an investment vehicle for future profits, then yes, this is the 'wrong' place. I'd argue, however, that communities and the properties that compose them should be about more an just financial value and should reflect the character and composition of a diverse city.

Agreed, however my frustration is more about overspending tax payer dollars, it is not an appropriate investment.

 

[ADRM]

Agreed, however my frustration is more about overspending tax payer dollars, it is not an appropriate investment.

But on what are you basing the assertion that it's an overspend?

 

[neuhaus]

This stretch of Davenport is not exactly pretty with a hodge-podge of aging buildings lining it.
It would be a smart move if the City purchased 348 Davenport at a good price, operate a shelter for a while until the neighbourhood becomes built up with luxury condos, shops and restaurants, then sell it to a developer when property values soar and use to the funds to build other shelters.

New York City has a homeless program to include a shelter in every neighbourhood, which is a great idea. One of these shelters is a 150 bed shelter planned next to One57, a 75-storey luxury condo where the penthouse sold for over $100 million.
We should integrate the homeless rather than segregate them, which will hopefully better rehabilitate them, give them more dignity, and get them off their feet. The homeless have a right to live wherever they want, just like the well-to-dos.

Most luxury condos have 24/7 security anyways. We can't just hide our homeless problem and pretend it doesn't exists.

 

[LUVIT!]

The best option is integration whether for the homeless , low income, whatever. As neuhaus said it gives those worse off a chance to be better off by being included rather than excluded.

 

[junctionist]

We need to get away from megashelters and only putting shelters in low income neighbourhoods where real estate is cheaper. Both practices result in a concentration of poverty that depresses entire districts. Smaller shelters have smaller impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods of all stripes need to shoulder some of the burden.

Take a look at this map of homeless shelters. A lot of those shelters are smaller operations that aren't located in undesirable areas. They don't ruin their neighbourhoods. Rather, they provide a critical safety net.

 

[bilked]

The DATRA position on providing shelter to the homeless in the Annex (as quoted in the G&M article):

"My neighbour has just pulled out in his Tesla. I can't imagine he is very happy at the thought that somebody might, out of, let's say jealousy, or whatever, feel obliged to graffiti his car," Mr. Napier-Andrews said in an interview. "And I am driving a Mercedes. Will I leave this on the lane? No I will not."

Just wow.

Also, glad to see Margaret Atwood return from the darkside.

 

[ADRM]

We need to get away from megashelters and only putting shelters in low income neighbourhoods where real estate is cheaper. Both practices result in a concentration of poverty that depresses entire districts. Smaller shelters have smaller impacts on the surrounding neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods of all stripes need to shoulder some of the burden.

Take a look at this map of homeless shelters. A lot of those shelters are smaller operations that aren't located in undesirable areas. They don't ruin their neighbourhoods. Rather, they provide a critical safety net.

Exactly. A 12-year-old girl said it best to a different group of NIMBYs at a community consultation regarding men's shelter on Bloor just east of Ossington a while ago: "I'm way more scared of the loud, drunk, old men I see outside the bars along here than I am of any of the people I see coming out of the shelter."

Youth may save us, yet.