Toronto 365 Church Condos | 102.1m | 31s | Menkes | Wallman Architects

THis will undoubtedly mean that the other building on the east side of Church across teh street from it and it will also encourage a developer to buy up the parking lot on the west side where the Barn is. Add that into the northeast corner of Church and Carleton (and the parking lot behind it) plus the space between the Primrose and the Ramada on Mutual/Jarvis and you are going to see a massive number of new people coming into this area and building it up.

THe buildings will be full of absentee landlords renting to student from Ryerson as well as the Church and Wellesley crowd. Party central. Can't say I would want to live there.
 
Thernan said:
THis will undoubtedly mean that the other building on the east side of Church across teh street from it and it will also encourage a developer to buy up the parking lot on the west side where the Barn is. Add that into the northeast corner of Church and Carleton (and the parking lot behind it) plus the space between the Primrose and the Ramada on Mutual/Jarvis and you are going to see a massive number of new people coming into this area and building it up.

THe buildings will be full of absentee landlords renting to student from Ryerson as well as the Church and Wellesley crowd. Party central. Can't say I would want to live there.
Click to expand...

Church/Carlton is right in the centre of downtown Toronto. It is natural for it to be full of students and Church/Wellesley people. Did you expect it to be a dead quiet area where families push strollers on the sidewalk? We have a lot of those neighbourhoods in the GTA, just not enough "party central" ones.
 
balenciaga said:
This buildings is not even located at Church-Wellesley Village, which doesn't start before Alexander.
Click to expand...

It's south boundary has been defined as Carlton St.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
It's south boundary has been defined as Carlton St.
Click to expand...

fair enough, although we know that there is nothing gay or retail between Alexander and Carlton on Church. The village is pretty much confined between Isabella and Alexander.
Still both 355 (at Gerrard) and 365 Church are located at a fair distance south of Carlton. A totally different neighhourhood I would say. Actually this area bounded by Carlton, Queen, Church and Jarvis doesn't seem to have a neighbourhood identity. What should we call it?

To argue it might threaten the lowrise nature of C-W village is not convincing.
 
urbandreamer said:
NE (Can't be so must be NW) Corner Church & Carlton is going to be a Tribute Communities condo tower. (Info via twitter about a week or two ago.)
Click to expand...

thank God, replace that dreadful Main Drug Market with anything. It is cold, boring, anv very people unfriendly.

I wish the CIBC building at SW can be restored. Nice building in terrible shape.
 
balenciaga said:
fair enough, although we know that there is nothing gay or retail between Alexander and Carlton on Church. The village is pretty much confined between Isabella and Alexander.
Click to expand...

City Park co-ops. have a lot of gay people living there - a LOT, as does 33 Wood & The Maples apartment complex, Hair of the Dog is a favorate gay hangout then there's Zipperz, but that's on Carlton at Church St. Just sayin' :)
 
Application: Designated Structures Status: Not Started

Location: 365 CHURCH ST
TORONTO ON M5B 1Z9

Ward 27: Toronto Centre-Rosedale

Application#: 12 281216 DST 00 DS Accepted Date: Nov 22, 2012

Project: First Party Sign Building Permit Related

Description: RENEWAL DEVELOPMENT SIGNS To erect and display a single-faced non-illuminated static copy ground sign at the southern frontage of the property in conjunction with the sales and marketing of an existing new development. **365 Church St** **Menkes**
 
What a strange thing to say, ThomasJ. You think the residents and councillors of Toronto should keep their mouths shut, not participate in the democratic process, and let developers do whatever they choose? What a draconian attitude towards democracy and city planning.

The OMB decision re: S37 doesn't say something wrong about Wong-Tam or the community/residents.

Rather, it goes to show how messed-up (and seemingly spiteful toward our cities) the OMB is, to make a decision that is hurtful to the city instead of making it a better place. I can't think of one good reason why there shouldn't be Section 37 from this development like any other.
 
Last edited:
The Board rejected a s.37 agreement because the city couldn't justify the $1.23M proposed in any way, shape or form other than to say oh!.... that's about the median amount acquired from other local developments with comparable GFA - let's charge it!. There is rampant misunderstanding among city councillors and the general public about how s.37 benefits can be negotiated, with both camps erroneously believing that it is permissible under the legislation to come up with an arbitrary sum of money that can be deposited into some slush fund and spent on whatever (and whenever) the councillor fancies. In order for a s.37 agreement to be legitimate the city has to identify specific community benefits to be secured through the agreement, and demonstrate that there is a nexus between the benefits proposed, and the additional height/density conferred to the developer. It's very simple, but alas, a remarkably elusive concept to many. (see Toronto v Sunny Hill Gardens, Toronto v Minto BYG, Toronto v Sterling Silver, etc.)

I'm not one to jump to the Board's defense (re. their inconsistent stance/track record on a lot of planning issues) but the uninformed vilification of the OMB as a developer-friendly cabal on these boards is borderline hysterical. They are working within statutory parameters that are not merely, y'know, suggestions. There are some great s.37 agreements that work out very well for the community and this could have been one of them, if the city bothered to undertake a deeper analysis of demonstrating that the specific benefits and $ amount proposed was commensurate with the magnitude of Menkes' proposal.

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl120119-Oct-12-2012.pdf
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top