Toronto 355 Coxwell | 22.67m | 6s | Habitat for Humanity | RAW Design

[Northern Light]

The province out with a presser for helping to support construction here.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

From the above:

I'll admit to some disappointment that this is not rental. If you can get financing for $500,000, you're not likely in acute need.

Its not that is a bad thing, its just a question of relative priority. I'd at least like to see this tied to purchasers able to move out of Rent Geared to Income Housing, if feasible such that it frees up 33 units for those in need.

 

[HousingNowTO]

I attended the media event with Habitat folks, Minister Flack and local Toronto Councillor Bradford this morning -

 

[HousingNowTO]

The province out with a presser for helping to support construction here.

Ontario Newsroom

news.ontario.ca

I'll admit to some disappointment that this is not rental. If you can get financing for $500,000, you're not likely in acute need.

Its not that is a bad thing, its just a question of relative priority. I'd at least like to see this tied to purchasers able to move out of Rent Geared to Income Housing, if feasible such that it frees up 33 units for those in need.

The opportunity for this to be RENTAL at that kind of "missing middle" density / scale and at this complex construction location (eg. Hydro wires / Turning Streetcars, etc) pretty-much DIED back in 2018, when the Coop folks walked away.

Habitat "affordable ownership" using 60th - 80th percentile will be for local Household incomes somewhere between $80-K to $140-K based on the unit size / household size.

(OCTOBER 2024) City Report PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-250928.pdf

 

[HousingNowTO]

This is proposed to replace the plaza at Coxwell and Gerrard:

355 COXWELL AVE
Ward 32 - Tor & E.York District
►View All Properties
Proposal for a 6 storey mixed use building containing 33 residential units, 1 retail unit at the ground level and office units on the 6th level with a gross density of 2.5 times the lot area and 9 surface parking spaces.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---
Applications:
Type Number Date Submitted Status
Rezoning 16 198323 STE 32 OZ Jul 28, 2016 Under Review

Renderings:
View attachment 82941

View attachment 82942



View attachment 82943

For the RECORD, today is 3,356 days since the original Co-op submission went into the City on July 28, 2016.

It is a great example of why it has been usually sooooo hard to build these kinds of small-scale affordable housing projects in the City of Toronto for the last 20+ years.

This COXWELL and GERRARD site was thankfully able to "run the gauntlet" at City Hall, and get support from the Province - to get this out of the ground almost a DECADE later.

Also, worth noting that this specific site has ZERO funding from CMHC, for example -- as there is no federal funding-model from CMHC to support "Affordable Ownership" models like Habitat -

Funding Programs for New Construction and Renovation Projects | CMHC

Find out what funding or financing programs your business might be eligible for from CMHC and the National Housing Strategy.

www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca

 

[HousingNowTO]

HABITAT project page is now public -

Coxwell

This project is supported by the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto.

habitatgta.ca

 

[Northern Light]

For the RECORD, today is 3,356 days since the original Co-op submission went into the City on July 28, 2016.

It is a great example of why it has been usually sooooo hard to build these kinds of small-scale affordable housing projects in the City of Toronto for the last 20+ years.

I agree this was completely unacceptable. But at the same time. The critical issues that happened along the road and needed resolution (and were resolved) were always going to need resolution.

Some things have since been resolved by evolving City rules that are more permissive; but some crucial details were very real problems that the City did seek to resolve in good faith.

This COXWELL and GERRARD site was thankfully able to "run the gauntlet" at City Hall, and get support from the Province - to get this out of the ground almost a DECADE later.

Sure.....but don't be giving credit to the province whose Premier announced Long Term Care at the Bridgepoint site more than 2 years ago that was to finished and open by now and hasn't started because their funding formula made it impossible.

The province has also effectively blocked LTC at Providence in Scarborough, the City LTC in Scarborough and the City site on George downtown.

Those 4 projects alone would be something like 1,000 beds......

This gov't can't hide behind a the Cowell figleaf and suggest its a supporter of housing. It is not.

Also, worth noting that this specific site has ZERO funding from CMHC, for example -- as there is no federal funding-model from CMHC to support "Affordable Ownership" models like Habitat -

Funding Programs for New Construction and Renovation Projects | CMHC

Find out what funding or financing programs your business might be eligible for from CMHC and the National Housing Strategy.

www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca

You know, I'm fine w/this, I simply disagree with subsidizing ownership for a tiny minority. Its profoundly unfair and a misallocation of finite resources.

 

[flonicky]

 

[flonicky]

Aside from the project office, the plaza across the street is empty. If they start planning now, something could be built by 2056.

 

[AlbertC]

The Cox Residences has a good ring to it!

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 692032

Aside from the project office, the plaza across the street is empty. If they start planning now, something could be built by 2056.

Hmmm, I'm all for losing that building...............and parking lot.........but a bit of assembly might be required. Nominally, that site is just over 11,000ft2.....but the sidewalk is incredibly narrow on all sides of this site. I think the City would make them set any building back at least 2m extra on Gerrard but 4M on Coxwell. That reduces the area to something like ~9,000ft2.

Apologies to any owners/renters, but I can't say any of the adjacent properties seem like they would be a great loss.

***

As long as we're 'reaching' in this tangent...... I feel the need to send @flonicky on an investigative assignment the next time he's by here.

To the south of that little 'plaza'.....there's some really curious infill based on the aerial photos:

I really wasn't conscious of that til now though I've been in this area plenty:

Inside the white lines, you'll notice the two buildings squeezed in between the buildings fronting Coxwell and those fronting the first N-S street to the east (Gainsborough)

There's driveway access immediately south of the plaza:

and again further south:

The addresses are 307and 341Coxwell.

A quick google search suggests these are structured as condos?

I'm curious about how these came to be......but also the ownership structure as they potentially impede redevelopment of the adjacent major road properties.

Bonus addn, Aerial photo 1968 shows the plaza property, but does not feature the current offer in the laneway: (not the building on the plaza property is also different)

 

[PL1]

Hmmm, I'm all for losing that building...............and parking lot.........but a bit of assembly might be required. Nominally, that site is just over 11,000ft2.....but the sidewalk is incredibly narrow on all sides of this site. I think the City would make them set any building back at least 2m extra on Gerrard but 4M on Coxwell. That reduces the area to something like ~9,000ft2.

Apologies to any owners/renters, but I can't say any of the adjacent properties seem like they would be a great loss.

***

As long as we're 'reaching' in this tangent...... I feel the need to send @flonicky on an investigative assignment the next time he's by here.

To the south of that little 'plaza'.....there's some really curious infill based on the aerial photos:

I really wasn't conscious of that til now thought I've been in this area plenty:

View attachment 692098

Inside the white lines, you'll notice the two buildings squeezed in between the buildings fronting Coxwell and those fronting the first N-S street to the east (Gainsborough)

There's driveway access immediately south of the plaza:

View attachment 692099

and again further south:

View attachment 692100

The addresses are 307and 341Coxwell.

A quick google search suggests these are structured as condos?

I'm curious about how these came to be......but also the ownership structure as they potentially impede redevelopment of the adjacent major road properties.

Bonus addn, Aerial photo 1968 shows the plaza property, but does not feature the current offer in the laneway: (not the building on the plaza property is also different)

View attachment 692107

The ?infill townhouse/condo in the white box was completed probably 13 years ago
Edit to add: this is a bit of a guess. It was after I moved to the area in 2010, but it's been a long time.

 

[nstuch]

Hmmm, I'm all for losing that building...............and parking lot.........but a bit of assembly might be required. Nominally, that site is just over 11,000ft2.....but the sidewalk is incredibly narrow on all sides of this site. I think the City would make them set any building back at least 2m extra on Gerrard but 4M on Coxwell. That reduces the area to something like ~9,000ft2.

Apologies to any owners/renters, but I can't say any of the adjacent properties seem like they would be a great loss.

***

As long as we're 'reaching' in this tangent...... I feel the need to send @flonicky on an investigative assignment the next time he's by here.

To the south of that little 'plaza'.....there's some really curious infill based on the aerial photos:

I really wasn't conscious of that til now thought I've been in this area plenty:

View attachment 692098

Inside the white lines, you'll notice the two buildings squeezed in between the buildings fronting Coxwell and those fronting the first N-S street to the east (Gainsborough)

There's driveway access immediately south of the plaza:

View attachment 692099

and again further south:

View attachment 692100

The addresses are 307and 341Coxwell.

A quick google search suggests these are structured as condos?

I'm curious about how these came to be......but also the ownership structure as they potentially impede redevelopment of the adjacent major road properties.

Bonus addn, Aerial photo 1968 shows the plaza property, but does not feature the current offer in the laneway: (not the building on the plaza property is also different)

View attachment 692107

I've never noticed those before!

they seem to each have a tiny frontage onto Coxwell

 

[flonicky]

I had a friend who lived in one of the 341 units about 25 years ago. From what I can recall, they had a nice, split level main floor with parquet flooring. Because they were behind all of the houses and there were lots of trees, there was a weird feeling of being out in the country. I can check and see if it still feels like that.

I don't have any experience with the newer 307 building.

 

[flonicky]

Here's what's behind the plaza across the street:

I totally misremembered this place because I was living in a very urban west end apartment back then, so everything in the east seemed more green to me.

The other plaza:

A peek inside:

You can still still a portion of the swallowed up building next door:

The current construction sits kitty corner from this great parkette:

This lush parkette is the reason why I get bent out of shape by the affliction of sterile, hardscaped parkettes and squares that have been spreading across the east end.

It would have been so nice if the horrible Queen Ashbridge POPs and the heat island at Dundas and Coxwell had been done like this. This city sometimes ...