Toronto 506 Church | 159.25m | 48s | Graywood | Diamond Schmitt

interchange42 said:
...therefore it would be a huge mistake to plan ahead when the entire building topology of the area is changing? As the types of buildings come down that have housed the clubs over the years, we are building ones in their place that are much harder to convert after the fact, but don't let that be cause for reflection, let's just build every condo the same everywhere. I am glad that Pride Toronto offices have been provided for, but that's not all that this community needs. Certainly you'd need someone with deep pockets and an interest in catering to the LGBTQ+2S community with a dance club or two here... I just want to see the possibility for something out of the ordinary to be accommodated here.

42
Click to expand...
I agree completely about the loss of culture, both here and more broadly across the city, in the face of constant, indefatigable, redevelopment pressure, but it's difficult to make a case for those things when the only Moloch this City apparently answers to is the ravenous maw of capitalism. My sense is that a club, important though it would surely be to the lifeblood of the Village, is too uncertain a use to plan for and Graywood is charting a simpler route.
 
Don't worry so soon. This revision will never be approved by the City.

I don't even see it being approved by the OMB given that the developers at 66 Wellesley Street East lost so, so (so) hard at the OMB on their proposal for a 36-storey tower:

[214] It is principally the height of the tower that is excessive, in both the existing and planned context. The tower does not “fit” the planned context of this site, so close to Church Street, even though it might be very close in height to the existing structures further west. It is proposed to be PART OF a structure on Church Street, it must be recalled. The streetscape of Church Street in Ex. 10 shows an average maximum of five storeys. The Tribunal agrees with the City that the tower at its present height is too close to Church physically, and to the different OP designation there, for it to be a “fit”. Adjustments in the design in last resubmission do lessen its impact overall, especially with respect to setbacks and shadowing.​
​
[218] Thus the proposed tower, even if the tower portion is entirely designated AN as the proponent would have it, forms part of a structure within the MU3 designation on Church. It would be acceptable to this Panel only if shorter. Even the nine-storey height of the portion over Church Street, within the same structure, could be challenged as not “low scale infill” in the context of the predominantly five-storey structures on Church.​
​
I'm not a planning lawyer, but as far as I can tell the zoning by-laws and planning guidelines are the exact same in this area.

I would go so far as to say this proposal is cynical and deeply offensive to the local / LGBTQ community. I wish Graywood the best of luck with destroying its reputation.
 
ProjectEnd said:
I agree completely about the loss of culture, both here and more broadly across the city, in the face of constant, indefatigable, redevelopment pressure, but it's difficult to make a case for those things when the only Moloch this City apparently answers to is the ravenous maw of capitalism. My sense is that a club, important though it would surely be to the lifeblood of the Village, is too uncertain a use to plan for and Graywood is charting a simpler route.
Click to expand...
In regards to this neighbourhood, simple is not smart here; Tango and Crews are more than just the average retail tenant on the average avenue; this is cultural lifeblood we're talking about in this case. @Dr. Snoot just above is correct; Graywood will be making a reputational mistake here if they proceed with a generically thoughtless proposal at 506. Again, yes, the Pride Toronto office is a good thing, but messing with the Church-Wellesley community's night out without better provisions to maintain or even enhance that in the rebuild will only engender contempt and opposition.

Meanwhile, if a tower is to go up here, then cut it back to 750 sq m floorplates, and maybe the elevator ratio won't be so ridiculous here as they won't be able to cram so many suites in. I suspect that's part of the play here though: go in at 833 sq m and absurd levels of non-service elevator-wise, then graciously offer to scale back to 750 sq m later to meet the standard THAT EVERY OTHER TOWER OF THIS SCALE has to meet, as if it is were a beneficent gesture. So yeah, @Dr. Snoot is right again: cynical submission much?

Graywood have a project down the road at Dundas that's stalled. It's a billion storeys tall and that's fine with everyone there, it's replacing a gas station, no one cares. They shouldn't mistake this site in the heart of the Village for the other one.

42
 
I was going through some old photos the other day and realized this looks like a knockoff of Arquitectonica's Paraiso Bay in Miami:

DSC_5531.jpg
 
Looks like they've also jumped on the hot Toronto trend of scalloped precast for the podium (COBE, GH3)...

I think I prefer a scalloped precast trend to a trend for buildings "inspired by the AIDS quilt" (per HPA & the previous iteration).
 
I'd appreciate it if someone could educate me. Why did 66 Wellesley Street East lose at the OMB when they are normally okay with height? I thought they usually ignored protected city character areas and focused more on meeting provincial density guidelines. That one is a few steps from a subway station. So why were they more agreeable with the city in this case?
 
NoahB said:
I'd appreciate it if someone could educate me. Why did 66 Wellesley Street East lose at the OMB when they are normally okay with height? I thought they usually ignored protected city character areas and focused more on meeting provincial density guidelines. That one is a few steps from a subway station. So why were they more agreeable with the city in this case?
Click to expand...
This proposal has not been responded to by the City yet — this has only just been submitted — so we have no firm idea yet just how the City will respond, although there are a number of issues with this proposal that the City is likely to pick at, including step-backs, size of the floor-plate, etc. If the City takes enough issue with it to reject it, or if the City does not respond within the time prescribed, then the developer could appeal a rejection or a lack of a decision to the OLT (former OMB). It will likely be months before we know which way things are going here, but in the meantime, there will be a community meeting to watch out for that you can attend.

If you want to know more about the 66 Wellesley East decision though, that discussion should be in its thread.

42
 
NoahB said:
I'd appreciate it if someone could educate me. Why did 66 Wellesley Street East lose at the OMB when they are normally okay with height? I thought they usually ignored protected city character areas and focused more on meeting provincial density guidelines. That one is a few steps from a subway station. So why were they more agreeable with the city in this case?
Click to expand...

At the risk of straying off topic -

- The site for that one is in two design plan areas, WWCA (Wellesley-Wood Character Area), and CSVCA (Church Street Village Character Area)
- WWCA is generally more permissive of tall building designs. CSVCA design plans indicate low-rise infill as a planned urban design
- Developer argued the tower is in the WWCA, and the midrise was in CSVCA, so all is compliant. City said it was all too tall regardless, and the design boundaries had a drafting error.

- OLT held that the development is basically in *both* character areas since the buildings are attached.
- Regardless, they found the 5-story podium and 9-storey height of the Church St adjacent part too tall for its location.
- They also found the tower too tall for WWCA since its design plan states massing should decrease with proximity to Church St.
- They found the nearby tall towers (50, 81, and 100 Wellesley) as not so relevant as they’re sufficiently far from Church St and the CSVCA (Note 81 did get an amendment to OPA 183 for that!)

Relevant to 506, which is indisputably in CSVCA:

- It’s a tall tower which is very outside the design plan that the OLT was holding to.
- No towers have been approved yet by the OLT or city inside the CSVCA
- Nearby towers (81 Wood, 403 Church) are not in CSVCA, and others are also significantly shorter (City Park and Village Green).

68-78 Wellesley (also in CSVCA) on the NW side of Church-Wellesley is a similar proposal that was refused by the city on similar grounds and will be heard next month. Probably will give a decent idea of what to expect here. Bonk.
 
Last edited:
NoafB said:
- The site for that one is in two design plan areas, WWCA (Wellesley-Wood Character Area), and CSVCA (Church Street Village Character Area)
- WWCA is generally more permissive of tall building designs. CSVCA design plans indicate low-rise infill as a planned urban design
- Developer argued the tower is in the WWCA, and the midrise was in CSVCA, so all is compliant. City said it was all too tall regardless, and the design boundaries had a drafting error.

- OLT held that the development is basically in *both* character areas since the buildings are attached.
- Regardless, they found the 5-story podium and 9-storey height of the Church St adjacent part too tall for its location.
- They also found the tower too tall for WWCA since its design plan states massing should decrease with proximity to Church St.
- They found the nearby tall towers (50, 81, and 100 Wellesley) as not so relevant as they’re sufficiently far from Church St and the CSVCA.

Relevant to 506, which is indisputably in CSVCA:

- It’s a tall tower which is very outside the design plan that the OLT was holding to.
- No towers have been approved yet by the OLT or city inside the CSVCA
- Nearby towers (81 Wood, 403 Church) are not in CSVCA, or also significantly shorter (City Park and Village Green)

68-78 Wellesley (also in CSVCA) on the NW side of Church-Wellesley is a similar proposal that was refused by the city on similar grounds and will be heard next month. Probably will give a decent idea of what to expect here.
Click to expand...
Planning is always in flux. Something new since in the develops' arsenal since the previous ruling on 66 Wellesley is that these building sites are now within MTSAs — Major Transit Station Areas, mandated by the Province — so the City, not that it will have to give in entirely, will have a harder time refusing larger buildings here.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Planning is always in flux. Something new since in the develops' arsenal since the previous ruling on 66 Wellesley is that these building sites are now within MTSAs — Major Transit Station Areas, mandated by the Province — so the City, not that it will have to give in entirely, will have a harder time refusing larger buildings here.

42
Click to expand...

In my digging I found that MTSA guidelines in the provincial planning statement 2024 don't specifically require anything for built form or height restriction at all beyond setting a minimum density of 200 residents per hectare within 500-800m of a subway station. I may be missing something here wrt the province's initiatives, but I'd expect the area is already in excess of that density. Should note as well that proximity to the subway station was specifically called out in the OLT report for 66 Wellesley, so definitely not an oversight at the time. The city certainly has defined the MTSA for Wellesley that includes the entire CW village since that decision was made.

I don't know if the new provincial edict or the city's own ambitions will change anything at the OLT between that ruling and now, but I have not found anything to suggest that OPA 183 has been superseded. Curious to know if you do though!

If nothing else I'm sure we'll find out a bit more when 68-78 gets their day in front of the tribunal.
 
Last edited:
NoafB said:
In my digging I found that MTSA guidelines in the provincial planning statement 2024 don't specifically require anything for built form or height restriction at all beyond setting a minimum density of 200 residents per hectare within 500-800m of a subway station. I may be missing something here wrt the province's initiatives, but I'd expect the area is already in excess of that density. Should note as well that proximity to the subway station was specifically called out in the OLT report for 66 Wellesley, so definitely not an oversight at the time. The city certainly has defined the MTSA for Wellesley that includes the entire CW village since that decision was made.

I don't know if the new provincial edict or the city's own ambitions will change anything at the OLT between that ruling and now, but I have not found anything to suggest that OPA 183 has been superseded. Curious to know if you do though!

If nothing else I'm sure we'll find out a bit more when 68-78 gets their day in front of the tribunal.
Click to expand...

MTSAs have not actually been enacted by the province........none of them.

They're on the Minister's desk and have been for many months.

As to what the City's proposals look like, vs the provincial target, here's College:

1729908852173.png


And here's Wellesley:

1729908893464.png


For those that wish to play along:

storymaps.arcgis.com

Major Transit Station Areas Interactive Engagement Tool

Our Plan Toronto
storymaps.arcgis.com storymaps.arcgis.com
 
Northern Light said:
MTSAs have not actually been enacted by the province........none of them.

They're on the Minister's desk and have been for many months.
Click to expand...
The development and planning communities have been acting as if they will be signed into law at any moment. While opponents of a project could certainly argue until such time that they not yet the law of the planning landscape, in effect, they're in effect.

42
 
This tracks from sales I have seen and participants involved in those sales within MTSAs. Take Mount Dennis for instance. Look who is buying up SFD and low density retail along arterials in that hood, as well as what they are proposing. Without MTSA's, I don't know that they would propose such grand plans.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top