400 Front Street | 201.05m | 63s | State Building Group | Kirkor Architects

Red Mars

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 4, 2009
Messages
3,940
Reaction score
21,009
Location
Toronto
400 and and the adjacent property had gravel for the longest time, just got a coat of asphalt.

Pics taken May 25, 2018





 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,884
Reaction score
10,059
City probably forced them to maintain the property up to standard. They did the same thing at the lot on queen east of Church a few years ago.

There are still quite a few lots around the downtown that are operating as gravel lots. The city needs to get on with enforcing property maintenance standards.
 

westtoeast

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 26, 2018
Messages
164
Reaction score
552
Does anyone have any indication of what became of this at the LPAT hearing? I know 49 Spadina ended up with an agreement and I'm pretty sure these were being heard together.
 

Kitsune

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
329
Does anyone have any indication of what became of this at the LPAT hearing? I know 49 Spadina ended up with an agreement and I'm pretty sure these were being heard together.

Hmm, quiet here for the past 4 months...with all the action going on down there i'm curious of the results @ the LPAT/OMB?

49 Spadina and 400 front where suppose to be done in a joint hearing, refer to part 10 on this: https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onlpat/doc/2018/2018canlii40419/2018canlii40419.html?resultIndex=4. However, the 49 spadina came to a resolution before the appeal date: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-117328.pdf. Per the e-case file ( https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL160685 ) it appears this did go through the hearing and no resolution has been posted yet; therefore more waiting ahead.
 

smably

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 26, 2009
Messages
1,359
Reaction score
3,212
That decision is a really interesting one. They've essentially struck down the Entertainment District height transition down from University toward Spadina. That height transition was never codified in the official plan or zoning by-law and thus, in the opinion of the LPAT, was never actually policy:
As a matter of procedure, form and fairness, the City’s reliance upon staff-initiated directives which have not been enacted in accordance with the planning policy structure in the Province, and in accordance with the regulatory requirements of the Act, is problematic and objectionable in a number of respects. First where “directives” intended to guide development applications have not been formally adopted into an Official Plan or Secondary Plan, or Zoning By-law, they have by-passed the mandatory requirements of the Act relating to public consultation, formal adoption and enactment, and the rights of appeal granted by the Province to every person. The avoidance of that process gives rise to a number of failings, not the least of which is the dispensing off the public consultation process, which is a foundation of planning in every municipality, that permits the stakeholders and residents the opportunity to provide input. When this has not occurred the larger public interest has not been served.

And:
...the Tribunal concludes that practically speaking there is no in-force policy or guideline that provides a designated or maximum height for the buildings such as those proposed in this Development.

I imagine that parts of this decision will set a broader precedent across the Entertainment District.
 

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,236
Reaction score
2,915
Location
Quarks Bar

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
14,884
Reaction score
10,059
That decision is a really interesting one. They've essentially struck down the Entertainment District height transition down from University toward Spadina. That height transition was never codified in the official plan or zoning by-law and thus, in the opinion of the LPAT, was never actually policy:


And:


I imagine that parts of this decision will set a broader precedent across the Entertainment District.
I mean it had already sort of started to die - 19 Duncan as well of course Mirvish-Gehry had broken the mythical 157m mark, but this more or less blows it out of the water. And rightfully so, it has long been a policy that the city enforced without having any actual policy to stand on. Same with their damn "clothesline" crap that they came up with.
 

Top