Toronto 4121 Kingston | 125m | 38s | Trinity Group | Arcadis

[Northern Light]

Thanks @Northern Light for that link to the document, it's very helpful to understand what is going with the development.

You're welcome.

I'm really surprised that they are not proposing a community center in addition to residential uses, which is much needed in the area. Port Union, Scarborough town center, and all the other surrounding neighborhoods have their own public community center except for Guildwood.

The proponent was required to complete a study of Community Services in the area to ascertain needs (includes Libraries, Childcare, Community Rec. Ctrs etc.)

You can find that study appended to the Planning Rationale Report, which can be downloaded here: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=7Bt3jUNGatQZz36uWG2sZw==

When you arrive at the above link, click on 'Supporting Documents'

Then click to go to the subsequent page and find the Planning Rationale Report.

****

From said report is the map of services found in the area:

My comments:

Based on the above, I consider there to be a need for an additional Community Recreation Centre (CRC) here.

However, that would not occur on this site in all likihood, and certainly not at the expense of the developer.

A typical, full-service CRC is now running a construction cost of 60M-85M per facility.

The most that would be asked here is a land contribution and/or some cash towards such a facility, likely as a Community Benefit.

Based on that last graphic, I would wager that adding a gym to Scarborough Village would be a top priority for any new $$ here.

****

The most logical site nearby for a new CRC is the City's tentative land assembly over on Poplar Road.

The thread for discussing that is here:

200 Poplar Road | ?m | 9s | Toronto Lands Corporation

A report is coming to the next Government and Licensing Committee on November 30th, 2020. Said report is about 'activating' the former Robert Borden Technical School as a community Hub. However, in the detail of the report, it is clear that the City is intent on acquiring this site, should it...

urbantoronto.ca

There are 3 nearby proposals for rental housing in the area already pending approval. What about families/young couples who are just starting out in the real estate market who would like to purchase their own apartment/condo? How can they reach upward mobility without these types of mixed housing? Hope to see this concerns incorporated as well.

If one had to choose, I would certainly prioritize new rental housing.

That said, I think you'll find, if you used UT's map function that there are nearby condo proposals in progress, notably, just east of Morningside.

There is also a large proposal, that has stalled out recently, but will surely be revived to redevelop the plaza at Markham Road and Eglinton.

I don't foresee any lack of ownership opportunities coming forward here; at least, beyond the general shortage we have in Toronto, relative to demand.

 

[MarcusA]

Thanks @Northern Light.

Here are the following developments underway adjacent to the site in less than 1 km. There are even more in the 5 km radius.
4151 Kingston Road: 9-storey rental, 145 units
4212 Kingston Road: 12 storey and 8 storey, 275 dwelling units
80 Dale Ave: 7 and 12 storeys, 284 units
3718 Kingston Road: 14 storey, 435 residential units

Which is in addition to the 996 units being provided at this location. But where are the additional facilities being provided for all these new units?

In the Preliminary Report (https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-170027.pdf), it mentioned that "At those meetings, the applicant communicated their goals and objectives for intensification where people can shop, live and work." I only see "live" being implemented, and "shopping" at a few retail stores I believe is not the original intention.

The report identifies exactly the issues of this development:

This development has the potential to benefit its residents and the community if these issues are addressed.

 

[Northern Light]

In the Preliminary Report (https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-170027.pdf), it mentioned that "At those meetings, the applicant communicated their goals and objectives for intensification where people can shop, live and work." I only see "live" being implemented, and "shopping" at 1 or 2 small retail stores I believe is not the original intention. 3,753 sqm is provided for retail in this proposal. A small convenient store is at least 2500 sqm.

The report identifies exactly the issues of this development:

Watch out for m2 vs ft2

3,723m2 is over 40,000ft2.

A typical new build supermarket is 30,000ft2

A convenience store is ~2,500ft2

 

[Northern Light]

No big news here, but worth mentioning Goodman's has been retained to lobby on this one.

Client is still Trinity (Trinity's Parent to be technical)

 

[historydude2012]

Just got mail concerning it. It has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal because of a non-decision. The Case Management Conference will be on June 13th starting at 10am.

 

[HousingNowTO]

Just got mail concerning it. It has been appealed to the Ontario Land Tribunal because of a non-decision. The Case Management Conference will be on June 13th starting at 10am.

Highly likely that the GUILDWOOD neighbours were going to appeal it to the OLT anyway - so this really just moves the process negotiated outcome along faster...

 

[historydude2012]

Yea for sure. Mostly was just posting because of the conference date.

 

[Northern Light]

Request for Direction Report, seeking to oppose this at OLT:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/sc/bgrd/backgroundfile-227507.pdf

My comments: Overall this is a decent plan, for purpose-built rental, reasonable dense, next to a transit station; there should certainly be a deal to be had here.

I don't frankly see much in the City's comments to suggest a compelling reason for opposition except to suggest that the applicant hasn't been overly cooperative.

I think there is room for improvement in the way in which the site has been massed with an eye to better integration w/the surrounding community.

But this is now set to head to the OLT. A fine use of everyone's time and money.....

 

[HousingNowTO]

But this is now set to head to the OLT. A fine use of everyone's time and money.....

It's probably a better use of everyone's time and money to get to the OLT as soon as possible - since even if the City had reached a FINAL REPORT agreement with the developer in late 2022 --- some random neighbour was going to appeal this site to the OLT anyway for between $400 - $1,100... which is exactly what happened at the nearby 80 DALE site.

Going to the OLT now, cuts at least 10+ months out of the expected Appeal-Process Calendar, which saves the development a lot of money/time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461116460084998152

 

[JBR]

It's probably a better use of everyone's time and money to get to the OLT as soon as possible - since even if the City had reached a FINAL REPORT agreement with the developer in late 2022 --- some random neighbour was going to appeal this site to the OLT anyway for between $400 - $1,100... which is exactly what happened at the nearby 80 DALE site.

Going to the OLT now, cuts at least 10+ months out of the expected Appeal-Process Calendar, which saves the development a lot of money/time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461116460084998152

Love the NIMBYism of some people. It’s a GO station, and we need housing, what better place to put it…..

 

[KhalilHeron]

It's probably a better use of everyone's time and money to get to the OLT as soon as possible - since even if the City had reached a FINAL REPORT agreement with the developer in late 2022 --- some random neighbour was going to appeal this site to the OLT anyway for between $400 - $1,100... which is exactly what happened at the nearby 80 DALE site.

Going to the OLT now, cuts at least 10+ months out of the expected Appeal-Process Calendar, which saves the development a lot of money/time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1461116460084998152

God i hate living in guildwood half the neighbourhood is like this. The best are lawn signs against a development that is not in the neighbourhood, blocking any views as it's north of the neighbourhood, it's just close to the neighbourhood so people may see it on their drive to work.

 

[JBR]

God i hate living in guildwood half the neighbourhood is like this. The best are lawn signs against a development that is not in the neighbourhood, blocking any views as it's north of the neighbourhood, it's just close to the neighbourhood so people may see it on their drive to work.

That newly built condo at Kingston/Eglinton was apparently going to be the end of the world according to a bunch of people in the Guild too.

 

[HousingNowTO]

That newly built condo at Kingston/Eglinton was apparently going to be the end of the world according to a bunch of people in the Guild too.

...this condo at Kingston/Eglinton..?

 

[JBR]

View attachment 409163
...this condo at Kingston/Eglinton..?

Yep that’s the one lol
I used to live on Kingsmere

 

[Northern Light]

View attachment 409163
...this condo at Kingston/Eglinton..?

I'm more sympathetic than some here to a certain degree of personal selfishness. That's not to suggest public policy should cater to that; but rather that I understand people's desire to protect their perceived quality of life.

But this example above is so absurd as to be comical.

****

To bring this back to the proposal at hand, I can understand seeking some 'tweaks' to the proposal; as I think there is some room for improvement (not a lowering of height/density, but some changes to the site plan and massing)...

I could understand someone wanting that; I could equally understand, however selfish it may be, if this proposal were Lakeside, and it blocked people's view of the Lake, who had previously enjoyed same (no public policy shouldn't accommodate that type of view wholesale; though I would broadly agree with view corridors and waterfront access); but regardless I would understand people's motives.

When you see this nonsense above, or objections based primarily on height/density, next to a GO station, that will not create material issues of privacy/overlook or shadowing for existing owners; I'm well and truly baffled at the illogic.

By all means, tweaks aside, advocate for some investment in the community (beautification, more waterfront parkland, affordable housing etc etc.)........but knee-jerk opposition is such a waste of everyone's time and money.