Toronto 540 Cedarvale | 10.33m | 3s | City of Toronto | Montgomery Sisam

Northern Light said:
The report to the March 2nd, 2021 meeting of Planning and Housing Committee is up.


A couple of notes:

Then Trenton Site will use only 1/2 the parking lot, it appears.

View attachment 301417
Some further descriptors:

View attachment 301418

Finally, a note that staff will be seeking to expedite approval via an MZO:

In response to City Council's request to prioritize the review and expedite the approval process for affordable housing, this report recommends that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to make a Minister's Zoning Order pursuant to Section 47 of the Planning Act for the modular housing proposals for 175 Cummer Avenue and the lot at the corner of Trenton and Cedarvale Avenue
Click to expand...


So they are only using the area directly across from the Parkside kindergarten playground? One wonders whether man of the people, Brad Bradford, will dismiss parents' reasonable concerns as dismissively as the smug lot in this chat thread.

It is a fair question to ask why the kids at Parkside need a front row seat for this community of asocial individuals. This is where parents, kids and faculty gather for our community barbeques and other events (when such things can happen, may that day come soon).

Parkside parents have been working with faculty and TDSB to elevate the school's standing and credibility for years. Actual years. It has not been easy, and the parent group is used to the challenges posed by the area, adjacent to a high-turnover rental building. Over time, new families have moved to this area and brought with them new energy and ideas for improvement, all for the benefit of our kids and the community. This project feels like an absolute slap in the face for these efforts, as well as a major set back.

Assuming for a moment that safety concerns are not as bad as parents fear (we all hope so), are we to accept this project as an object lesson in life outcomes to be avoided? We are concerned with making sure the youngest population in the TDSB ecosystem has a positive first impression of the school experience, learning that school is a fun and SAFE place to be. I don't see how these two things (positive student experience and homeless transition facility) can dovetail, but I am looking forward to learning more and having my voice heard, along with other Parkside parents and faculty.
 
VeryLitzgerald said:
So they are only using the area directly across from the Parkside kindergarten playground? One wonders whether man of the people, Brad Bradford, will dismiss parents' reasonable concerns as dismissively as the smug lot in this chat thread.

It is a fair question to ask why the kids at Parkside need a front row seat for this community of asocial individuals. This is where parents, kids and faculty gather for our community barbeques and other events (when such things can happen, may that day come soon).

Parkside parents have been working with faculty and TDSB to elevate the school's standing and credibility for years. Actual years. It has not been easy, and the parent group is used to the challenges posed by the area, adjacent to a high-turnover rental building. Over time, new families have moved to this area and brought with them new energy and ideas for improvement, all for the benefit of our kids and the community. This project feels like an absolute slap in the face for these efforts, as well as a major set back.

Assuming for a moment that safety concerns are not as bad as parents fear (we all hope so), are we to accept this project as an object lesson in life outcomes to be avoided? We are concerned with making sure the youngest population in the TDSB ecosystem has a positive first impression of the school experience, learning that school is a fun and SAFE place to be. I don't see how these two things (positive student experience and homeless transition facility) can dovetail, but I am looking forward to learning more and having my voice heard, along with other Parkside parents and faculty.
Click to expand...

These "asocial individuals" were kids - and somebody else's kids - once too. I am not sure if teaching kids that they are something to be put out of sight, out of mind - as a way to teach them "positive outcomes" is the best lesson to be had. One'd hope empathy is one lesson to be learned and one value to be instilled in our children.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
This is an utterly preposterous post.

As we are all paying taxes; which taxpayer would you like to see this rammed down the throat of, to use your words?

If we all got a say; and for argument's sake, all said 'no'..........exactly how would that help the homeless?

****

There is absolutely no evidence to support that you will lose 1/3 of the value of your home with this development.

Find me evidence that type of loss has occurred in Toronto in recent years with any type of development beside a home; never mind a type that has only existed for a few weeks.
Click to expand...
Not to mention, the homeless also pay taxes. And due to their meager incomes, likely disproportionately so. Nor are they in a position to declare their earnings so they can get money back from it to my understanding.

That said, there was so much civic fail with the counter, it would take me a day to unpack it all. So for the sake of keeping things back on the rails, I won't. And let it sit there in all its ignorance...all due to they really don't want this housing initiative near their backyards, because prejudicism.
 
For the life of me I cant understand why people are going after @Northern Light here when he is the only one actually providing information and evidence. I can understand the emotional reaction to this - and everyone ought to express their opinion on it. But "I am losing money" is not an acceptable argument. 1) We don't know if this true. I suspect it's highly unlikely that your property values will decrease. 2) The cities objectives are not to increase your property value. The cities does and should provide smart strategies to help the most vulnerable while saving taxpayer money. It seems to me this proposal is aiming to achieve this.
 
Looking at those setbacks in the report @Northern Light - don't think they are only using half of the lot.

A crude markup

Trenton-Site.png
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Looking at those setbacks in the report @Northern Light - don't think they are only using half of the lot.

A crude markup

Trenton-Site.png
Click to expand...

Great contribution. Thanks.

This does imply the image the City has in the report is incorrect.

Mistakes happen, but that's bad form on their part, if true.
 
I know the area, too. I have to agree that the Trenton site isn't a great choice. The parking lot on Cosburn seems like it'd be a way, way better spot for this. And if affordable housing were to go up on the Cosburn lot I'd rather see it incorporated into a mixed-housing model like something along the Esplanade in St. Lawrence. Keep the same 64 affordable units, but mix in some different unit sizes, add some rent-geared-to-income units, build it in a way that it integrates into the neighbourhood. There'd be enough space on the Cosburn lot to have a 5-6 storey building facing Cosburn, stepping down to 2-3 storeys against the existing residential stock. A larger building might even be able to preserve some of the parking, and even score a retail unit facing the park (tough to find a cup of coffee around there!).

(Steps back and waits to get slammed by both the homeowners' association and the affordable housing advocates...)
 
whatever said:
I know the area, too. I have to agree that the Trenton site isn't a great choice. The parking lot on Cosburn seems like it'd be a way, way better spot for this. And if affordable housing were to go up on the Cosburn lot I'd rather see it incorporated into a mixed-housing model like something along the Esplanade in St. Lawrence. Keep the same 64 affordable units, but mix in some different unit sizes, add some rent-geared-to-income units, build it in a way that it integrates into the neighbourhood. There'd be enough space on the Cosburn lot to have a 5-6 storey building facing Cosburn, stepping down to 2-3 storeys against the existing residential stock. A larger building might even be able to preserve some of the parking, and even score a retail unit facing the park (tough to find a cup of coffee around there!).

(Steps back and waits to get slammed by both the homeowners' association and the affordable housing advocates...)
Click to expand...
Which parking on Cosburn are you referring to? The triangle btw Oak Park and Gledhill (2 blocks from current proposed location)? This would make sense and seem to be supported by the same locational thesis as the current proposal, without being adjacent to an elementary school.
 
That's the one. It's almost more of a trapezoid, but it looks like a triangle because there's some landscaping at the northeast corner. It's just a stone's throw from Gledhill, so my point is less about the proximity to school and more about the overall composition of the project. Affordable housing should be close to schools! But to repeat my point, I'd rather see a mix of housing units within the development, so that families can move in and enjoy the neighbourhood. Sure, throw some studios into it as well, single people need homes too, but I think history has shown that affordable housing works best in buildings that have mixed income residents living in mixed housing stock. But the Trenton site feels too small to accomodate that style of building. What I'm describing makes way more sense on Cosburn.

Edit: Maybe it doesn't have to be either/or, but I could even see an argument for selling off the Trenton land, allowing townhouses to go up there, and then using the proceeds of the sale to help a proper development on the Cosburn parking lot.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top