Toronto 405 Sherbourne | 84.4m | 25s | CreateTO | SvN

At CreateTO Board meeting today - the said that they are expecting a not-for-profit RFP to go out to market in Q2 2022 - they also highlighted the key RISK(s) on this site...

PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ra/bgrd/backgroundfile-222172.pdf
1646683553098.png
 


405 Sherbourne St.:

Currently a Green P parking lot, 405 Sherbourne St. is part of Phase Two of the City's Housing Now Initiative. Housing Now is a City-wide initiative with 17 locations across Toronto where new mixed-income, mixed-use development will be built to support complete communities. In July of 2021, City Council approved the zoning by-law for this site, which will facilitate the revitalization of a 26-storey mixed-use building with 267 rental units, of which a minimum of 33% will be provided as new affordable rental. In addition to the minimum 33% affordable units, staff will look for opportunities to create 40 units of supportive housing onsite as part of the overall 267 rental units. The development concept also includes at least 168 square metres of community space, and a new landscaped mid-block connection. The City is expected to issue an RFP for a non-profit housing provider to develop this site by the third quarter of 2022.
 
The 2024 budget submission by the Toronto Parking Authority (headed in report form to next week's meeting) seems to suggest construction will begin here in 2024:


Second last page.
The 405 SHERBOURNE site has not gone out to RFP yet, but we did suggest to Mayor Chow's team that this site was on the list of "City Owned & Already Re-zoned" if she wanted locations to PILOT her new Public Builder proposal...

 
...redevelopment within the "Heritage Conservation District" passed at this morning's Board meeting, next stop is probably Planning & Housing Committee on June 28th...

Sorry to bump a post in a thread from years ago, but these outrageous 'heritage districts' and 'no new net shade' policies seem so ripe for some major discrimination lawsuit I am shocked one has not yet been brought to the courts yet. I am far from a lawyer, but quite fine grain racial and income data exists for these neighbourhoods that have seen layers upon layers of additional legal protections and avenues of dispute handed over to statistically much whiter and wealthier areas (or even streets). Built form is a very shaky excuse, especially considering the inclusion of parking lots, like 405 Sherbourne itself and various SFH remodels/full rebuilds. Could the carving out of statistically lower income/more diverse clusters as seen with this map not constitute a systemic denial of certain groups to municipal services at the cost of property values/quality of life?
1704321338529.png
 
Sorry to bump a post in a thread from years ago, but these outrageous 'heritage districts' and 'no new net shade' policies seem so ripe for some major discrimination lawsuit I am shocked one has not yet been brought to the courts yet.

I don't see why.

I am far from a lawyer, but quite fine grain racial and income data exists for these neighbourhoods that have seen layers upon layers of additional legal protections and avenues of dispute handed over to statistically much whiter and wealthier areas (or even streets).

This is not generally true.

First off many 'neighbourhood' zoned areas are very diverse and indeed majority minority. Second, apartment neighbourhoods also have protections. The idea that these are afforded by race is not evidence based, and is the sort of statement likely to get vitriolic backlash.

Built form is a very shaky excuse, especially considering the inclusion of parking lots, like 405 Sherbourne itself and various SFH remodels/full rebuilds. Could the carving out of statistically lower income/more diverse clusters as seen with this map not constitute a systemic denial of certain groups to municipal services at the cost of property values/quality of life?

No.

What services do you imagine are being denied? Toronto in fact allocates lots of extra resources to areas with economic challenges; from Free Recreation Centres to expanded libraries to publicly funded, free dental care.


The carve out in the area above is specifically because the buildings included are not heritage buildings. How would justify imposing heritage-related protections for buildings that much newer and not in character w/the generally Victoria buildings which are protected?

The point of the Heritage Conservation District Status is to protect buildings that look like this:

1704322488869.png


This is what is excluded:

1704322566262.png


It clearly is not consistent w/the architectural character of those other buildings, on what basis would you assign it the same status?

To be clear, the different statuses in that map do not connote differences in library, recreation, parks, garbage, policing or other services.

All they do is say, is that if you could otherwise gain permission to demolish any of those homes so listed that you must rebuild in keeping w/the architectural scale/colour palette etc of the street. That's it.
 
This is not generally true.

First off many 'neighbourhood' zoned areas are very diverse and indeed majority minority. Second, apartment neighbourhoods also have protections. The idea that these are afforded by race is not evidence based, and is the sort of statement likely to get vitriolic backlash.



No.

What services do you imagine are being denied? Toronto in fact allocates lots of extra resources to areas with economic challenges; from Free Recreation Centres to expanded libraries to publicly funded, free dental care.
In terms of services, I was referring to the additional bureaucracy that developments within these designated zones must go through, as I believe @HousingNowTO made some light of the parking lot going through a heritage review further up the thread. I should have clarified, these heritage areas are not getting their bushes pruned by the city per say, but the amount of time city staff spend on appeasing the 'neighbourhoods' and especially those deemed heritage seems to far outstrip the 'apartment' neighbourhoods/sites of the city. I have not culminated any hard statistics on the matter, but I am sure we are familiar with the differing levels of pushback a project close to say Royal York Station would receive compared to the pushback a project at the adjacent Islington Station would experience.

And yes the neighbourhoods, especially in the boroughs are incredibly diverse, as this map displays. However the closer to the core a neighbourhood is, the more expensive and limited the 'neighbourhoods' are. Cabbagetown is infamous for its exclusivity and high level of white residents, a fact which this map represents very clearly. (Based on 2011 Stats Canada Census).
1704325968389.png

1704326151791.png


One the eastern side of Parliament, where the row-house dominates, dotted by a rare few low-rise apartments, the demographics are overwhelmingly White.
1704327153585.png


Directly across the street, the hyper diverse neighbourhood that Toronto is known for is found in the high rises of St. James Town, and the older low rise apartments that continue westwards.
1704327626367.png


One of the craziest examples of this segregation through zoning is to be found in midtown.
1704329417822.png


Between the beltline trail and Davisville Avenue exists a very diverse cluster of apartments (and commercial buildings) constructed during the 20th century following the construction of line 1. This is thus a highly racially diverse pocket of the city.
1704329584993.png


There is a very sharp cutoff as the population north of Davisville Ave becomes almost exclusively white, and the residential units become overwhelmingly single family.
1704329762989.png


Then yet again as one heads north and crosses Soudan Avenue, in a shift so clearly correlated with housing typology, the population becomes hyper diverse once again. And yes to the east and west of this corridor, non white populations live in the neighbourhoods but at a markedly lower concentration and diversity (ie almost no black residents east of Mt. Pleasant) than within the apartment areas noted. This trend can be seen once again on the northern end of the Yonge/Eg node, as the demographics and buildings shift north of Keewatin Avenue.
1704329887827.png


Race absolutely does correlate with home ownership and or apartment dwelling, particularly in the core of Toronto. White Canadians are on average wealthier, and that wealth is increasingly tied up in home ownership as the housing crisis has worsened over the last few decades. This is by no means to say non white people do not own homes, or are universally impoverished, simply that statically being white correlates with an increased likelihood of home ownership and wealth.

Examples of this racial divide in built form exists across the city, including in my neighbourhood of New Toronto.
1704328051582.png

1704328127511.png

The leafy streetcar suburbs south of Lake Shore Blvd and closer to the lake are quite white, with notable minority populations centred largely in the apartments constructed in the area prior to the introduction of restrictive zoning in place today

1704328225548.png

North of, and along LakeSshore, in the more recently built co-ops composed of both low rise townhouses and high rises, the residents are overwhelmingly non white.

Torontos planning and built form is absolutely affected by the racial makeup and biases within the city residents and municipality, and I think it's very important to be conscious of that. This is not Jmi22 original thesis by any means btw, there are a lot of great researchers writing about this, Nemoy Lewis being one of them.
 
In terms of services, I was referring to the additional bureaucracy that developments within these designated zones must go through, as I believe @HousingNowTO made some light of the parking lot going through a heritage review further up the thread. I should have clarified, these heritage areas are not getting their bushes pruned by the city per say, but the amount of time city staff spend on appeasing the 'neighbourhoods' and especially those deemed heritage seems to far outstrip the 'apartment' neighbourhoods/sites of the city. I have not culminated any hard statistics on the matter, but I am sure we are familiar with the differing levels of pushback a project close to say Royal York Station would receive compared to the pushback a project at the adjacent Islington Station would experience.

And yes the neighbourhoods, especially in the boroughs are incredibly diverse, as this map displays. However the closer to the core a neighbourhood is, the more expensive and limited the 'neighbourhoods' are. Cabbagetown is infamous for its exclusivity and high level of white residents, a fact which this map represents very clearly. (Based on 2011 Stats Canada Census).

You've conflated two different issues; neither of which bear on the appropriateness of heritage rules and misrepresented the labour allocation in respect of the latter.

*****

1) Yes, neighbourhoods are unequal by income, that is not the same as discriminatory by skin colour or ethnicity.

2) Yes, some people of some backgrounds are disproportionately better off. That is generally not a function of racial/ethnic discrimination in the current period, and indeed conflating it as such will likely sustain and increase the disparity.

The discrimination, per se, is against low-income earners of all backgrounds.

The problems are equal access to higher education, equal access to healthcare, equal access to high employment standards and income etc. Heritage laws don't prevent someone from going to medical school or becoming an engineer. Heritage laws
don't provide inadequate social supports to the neediest, nor do they offset the disadvantages for those that lack inherited wealth.

Conflating something better addressed by higher minimum wage, lower university tuition, and pharmacare with heritage laws is peculiar and misguided.

Misspending resources will perpetuate and increase inequity and do nothing to further equal opportunity.

3) Be very careful in demonizing a neighbourhood based on its ethnicity. What can cut one way can cut the other. This has the appearance of being racist.

I don't believe you meant it that way, but I think a majority of people of all backgrounds would be far less forgiving in their interpretation of your views. There are neighbourhoods with above average household income that are disproportionately south or east Asian. Your line of reasoning would lead to accusations of racism by and in favour of said groups.

It's not sound reasoning.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AHK
Mm, obsession with race is so healthy. Imagine finding a fictional race war hidden inside zoning regulations and making a whole bunch of 1950s sounding racial comments, all in a city as diverse as Toronto.

This discussion needs to be in the zoning thread and cleaned up from that rhetoric. Right now you are far off topic and very out of line.
 

Back
Top