Toronto 38 Walmer Road | 80.65m | 25s | TAS | Hariri Pontarini

[rickshaw]

The poster has already indicated that she lives nearby. Reading posts, before hitting reply is always a wise choice.



I entirely understand concerns over shadows; however, it's important not to wildly exaggerate; if you consult the shadow studies by following the link below, looking under 'supporting documentation' and then going to p.3 and clicking on Sun/Shadow studies, you'll find that no property is affected for more than 2-3 hours per day.

Application Details

secure.toronto.ca

So almost no property is subject to incremental shadow all/most of the day. One apartment building's southern elevation is close'ish, but of note, if you chopped this proposal in half, that wouldn't change.



That sucks, but is a fact of life in booming Toronto, and again, a proposal 1/2 this size would still have a construction schedule 3/4 as long.



The answer to that, frankly, is to stop providing subsidized, below-market street parking. If the City charged the same rates as buildings/homes which rent out spaces nearby, permit parking would go for $225 per month.

At that price, fewer people would have 2-car households, fewer people would have one-car households, and those willing to pay for a market-priced permit, would have no problem finding parking.

(likewise, pay and display parking should be in effect during the daytime, with permit holders exempt, since they've pre-paid)



This is an irrational fear for most owners in this area, as each time a new density precedent is set, the properties nearby end up worth more money, for better or worse.

* There are always exceptions with homes that have full heritage protection or small awkward lots that may not have future development potential.



Resorting to name-calling is unwise, and may attract adverse attention from the Mods.

One can thoughtfully assert a position, for or against any proposal without making it overly personal or hostile. Facts work better.

You are right about name-calling being unwise. It was totally sarcastic, and has been deleted. As for the rest, it all sounds good in theory, but it's not reality. Question - do you want to live next door or across the street from this? And you have no fear that in an area with no building taller than 8/10 storeys this will begin a trend of very high towers. This 20 storey tower gets built, and how long till a 30 storey tower gets built? How long till a 45 storey building pops up? etc...

 

[rickshaw]

The poster has already indicated that she lives nearby. Reading posts, before hitting reply is always a wise choice.



I entirely understand concerns over shadows; however, its important not to wildly exaggerate; if you consult the shadow studies by following the link below, looking under 'supporting documentation' and then going to p.3 and clicking on Sun/Shadow studies, you'll find that no property is affected for more than 2-3 hours per day.

Application Details

secure.toronto.ca

So almost no property is subject to incremental shadow all/most of the day. One apartment building's southern elevation is close'ish, but of note, if you chopped this proposal in half, that wouldn't change.



That sucks, but is a fact of life in booming Toronto, and again, a proposal 1/2 this size would still have a construction schedule 3/4 as long.



The answer to that, frankly, is to stop providing subsidized, below-market street parking. If the City charged the same rates as buildings/homes which rent out spaces nearby, permit parking would go for $225 per month.

At that price, fewer people would have 2-car households, fewer people would have one-car households, and those willing to pay for a market-priced permit, would have no problem finding parking.

(likewise, pay and display parking should be in effect during the daytime, with permit holders exempt, since they've pre-paid)



This is an irrational fear for most owners in this area, as each time a new density precedent is set, the properties nearby end up worth more money, for better or worse.

* There are always exceptions with homes that have full heritage protection or small awkward lots that may not have future development potential.



Resorting to name-calling is unwise, and may attract adverse attention from the Mods.

One can thoughtfully assert a position, for or against any proposal without making it overly personal or hostile. Facts work better.

Nearby could mean 6 blocks away...

 

[Northern Light]

You are right about name-calling being unwise. It was totally sarcastic, and has been deleted.

Excellent.

As for the rest, it all sounds good in theory, but it's not reality. Question - do you want to live next door or across the street from this?

I don't live in the neighbourhood, and for the sake of disclosure, my view is of a City Park, precluding my facing that choice.

That said, the locations where redevelopment is possible/likely have been mapped out as part of this application, and possible/likely heights shown (keeping in mind this is not the application saying they want to do anything on these other sites, but rather fulfilling a requirement by the City to estimate what may/is likely to happen over time)

That plan can be seen in the Block Context Plan file on p.1 under Supporting Documentation.

This file shows the area area where zoning would permit a similar application today, nearby.

The darker orange/red colour, the same as the Church site is the one of interest, its the one where apartments are already permitted in the Zoning by-law.

Two scenarios are presented, both show only one additional major development, on the parcel just to the north of the church. One envisions an 11s bulding, the other an 18s building, I will post the latter image:

That's likely a very good representation of what will unfold in the years ahead.

And you have no fear that in an area with no building taller than 8/10 storeys this will begin a trend of very high towers. This 20 storey tower gets built, and how long till a 30 storey tower gets built? How long till a 45 storey building pops up? etc...

See above

 

[concrete_and_light]

You are right about name-calling being unwise. It was totally sarcastic, and has been deleted. As for the rest, it all sounds good in theory, but it's not reality. Question - do you want to live next door or across the street from this? And you have no fear that in an area with no building taller than 8/10 storeys this will begin a trend of very high towers. This 20 storey tower gets built, and how long till a 30 storey tower gets built? How long till a 45 storey building pops up? etc...

It's not true that the area has no buildings taller than 8/10 storeys like you say. 35 Walmer Road, which is one of the Uno Prii-designed buildings @UtakataNoAnnex was referring to and is, well, extremely nearby is 15 storeys.

Did this building and others similar to it nearby (44 Walmer is 13 storeys, 10 Walmer Road is 17 storeys) ruin the neighbourhood, destroy property values, and plunge your world into eternal darkness?

35 Walmer was also built in the 1960s (back when we used to build apartment housing for people instead of keeping it out of wealthy neighbourhoods in order to protect single family home owners above all other priorities and needs). Is adding 5 storeys as a standard for a new build in the area really that aggressive ~60 years later?

 

[rickshaw]

well, as the old cliche saying goes - There goes the neighbourhood! People love living in the Annex because it's not full of giant high-rise condos. There's lots of land to develop in Toronto, downtown and elsewhere. I just feel strongly (as someone who currently lives here) this site is definitely not the place for it. Cheers.

 

[rickshaw]

It's not true that the area has no buildings taller than 8/10 storeys like you say. 35 Walmer Road, which is one of the Uno Prii-designed buildings @UtakataNoAnnex was referring to and is, well, extremely nearby is 15 storeys.

Did this building and others similar to it nearby (44 Walmer is 13 storeys, 10 Walmer Road is 17 storeys) ruin the neighbourhood, destroy property values, and plunge your world into eternal darkness?

35 Walmer was also built in the 1960s (back when we used to build apartment housing for people instead of keeping it out of wealthy neighbourhoods in order to protect single family home owners above all other priorities and needs). Is adding 5 storeys as a standard for a new build in the area really that aggressive ~60 years later?

This is a much bigger project than those. As for eternal darkness, yes, I know from where my home is it will be shaded almost the entire day if not literally the entire day. You honestly would want to live directly across the street from this? Or directly beside it? I've already been told by an agent that it will decrease the value of the homes directly across and beside it... Anyways, I realize I'm posting on a site where people simply admire the architecture of projects, and might not care about those that are directly affected by it. But please keep in mind that many are indeed directly affected and have a (justified) different perspective. Cheers.

 

[Undead]

well, as the old cliche saying goes - There goes the neighbourhood! People love living in the Annex because it's not full of giant high-rise condos. There's lots of land to develop in Toronto, downtown and elsewhere. I just feel strongly (as someone who currently lives here) this site is definitely not the place for it. Cheers.

People in other areas can say the exact same thing about your area.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Do you live nearby? Next door? Across the street? Or are you merely a detached spectator who is admiring the "Art" of the project? Is your home now going to be covered in full shade at all times due to this enormous tower blocking the sun? Do you have little children living on the street that will now be directly exposed to a massive construction site for a few years? (good luck with nap time!) Do you already have trouble finding street parking as it is, and find the intersection often backed up with cars already, without adding hundreds of more people to the neighbourhood? Do you own a property nearby and fear the value will now decrease? If no to all of the above, don't you feel great offering your opinion? non? The "Art" might be wonderfully weird looking, but it affects people's real lives. Doesn't that make you feel great? Non?

I mean little children shouldn't be living on the street on the first place...

...but putting that odd misfire aside, your objection based purely on anecdote isn't going to cut it. Least not with me, as a person who just lives north of two fairly large construction *initiatives also...to which I am not really experiencing any of your issues. As well as, your appeal to emotions shouldn't stop what is needed to be done to stop this building...church from falling into entirely disrepair and rot, because the owners can no longer really afford its upkeep. (Blame them for this?)

And oh, there's no tearing down that church in the current plans. Rather just adding an improved extension to it with residential options on something that was already added to this building in question, I believe. It may not be the best solution. (What is?) But I am pretty sure the neighbourhood will still be intact after the fact. /shrug

*Source:

KESKUS Estonian Cultural Centre | UrbanToronto

KESKUS Estonian Cultural Centre, Toronto by 1, Kongats Architects

urbantoronto.ca

Cielo Condos | UrbanToronto

Cielo Condos, Toronto by 1, KPMB Architects

urbantoronto.ca

Edit/PS: And what Northern Light-san said.

 

[rickshaw]

People in other areas can say the exact same thing about your area.

Sure they can. And they do! I come from a family of builders/developers. Many projects like this don't even end up happening, get stopped due to community backlash (and lots of lawyers...) Anyways, if this happens, I'll be moving away before construction even starts, so in the end I guess it doesn't really matter.

 

[rickshaw]

I mean little children shouldn't be living on the street on the first place...

...but putting that odd misfire aside, your objection based purely on anecdote isn't going to cut it. Least not with me, as a person who just lives north of two fairly large construction *initiatives also...to which I am not really experiencing any of your issues. As well as, your appeal to emotions shouldn't stop what is needed to be done to stop this building...church from falling into entirely disrepair and rot, because the owners can no longer really afford it's upkeep. (Blame them for this?)

And oh, there's no tearing down that church in the current plans. Rather just adding an improved extension to it with residential options on something that was already added to this building in question, I believe. It may not be the best solution. (What is?) But I am pretty sure the neighbourhood will be intact after the fact. /shrug

*Source:

KESKUS Estonian Cultural Centre | UrbanToronto

KESKUS Estonian Cultural Centre, Toronto by 1, Kongats Architects

urbantoronto.ca

Cielo Condos | UrbanToronto

Cielo Condos, Toronto by 1, KPMB Architects

urbantoronto.ca

Live in a "house on the street". Jeez... You do realize they're building this for profit, right? They're not donating the proceeds to the church/community or anything. They will make a lot of money! Helping rebuild the Church is almost a loophole (can't develop it if they don't...)

 

[DavidCapizzano]

Sure they can. And they do! I come from a family of builders/developers. Many projects like this don't even end up happening, get stopped due to community backlash (and lots of lawyers...) Anyways, if this happens, I'll be moving away before construction even starts, so in the end I guess it doesn't really matter.

tragic

 

[Rimsky44]

People in other areas can say the exact same thing about your area.

I think that's called BANANA when you factor everyone's NIMBY. As in "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything".

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Live in a "house on the street". Jeez... You do realize they're building this for profit, right? They're not donating the proceeds to the church/community or anything. They will make a lot of money! Helping rebuild the Church is almost a loophole (can't develop it if they don't...)

...most homes are?

 

[rickshaw]

...most homes are?

I'm saying they don't give a s**t about the Church. It's their loophole to develop the site.

 

[rickshaw]

I think that's called BANANA when you factor everyone's NIMBY. As in "Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything".

Building homes is great. 20 Storeys at that site is not. And I believe these are being promoted as "Luxury" Condos, very expensive. It's not like it's something that will help the housing shortage in the city.