Toronto 6 Noble Street | 42.44m | 13s | Minto Group | Sweeny &Co

Alex L said:
a) Parkdale was re-developed decades ago. Lots of towers. It has one of the highest densities in the city and doesn't 'need' more.

c) Stable is good. Parkdale has its share of everything. It does not need to be crammed further.

d) It's still within a mile. Again, we don't need to push up the density in Parkdale. Look to the west side of the Humber (not Humber Bay, but along The Queensway and north of there) to see where density needs to increase. Look north of Bloor to Eglinton, and on and on.
Click to expand...

c) 'Need' isn't how these things work. Nor is the idea that you can just 'turn off' development in a certain geographic area (though the OP does attempt this in 'Neighbourhoods').

b) That's not what you argued originally.

d) see "c)"
 
ProjectEnd said:
c) 'Need' isn't how these things work. Nor is the idea that you can just 'turn off' development in a certain geographic area (though the OP does attempt this in 'Neighbourhoods').

b) That's not what you argued originally.

d) see "c)"
Click to expand...

Architects whining about sacrosanct neighbourhoods would have more cred if they were talking about building to increase density where it is needed. That's my main feeling about the Globe article. I live near Sorauren but I work in Scarborough and occasionally walk through neighbourhoods at lunch. I might see 1-5 pedestrians in a half-hour to hour. In Parkdale and Roncesvalles, less than a minute. Parks and facilities are fully utilized. So, it is 'built up' fully. Tons of capacity for development elsewhere. The economics of redeveloping this site might require building upwards. I understand that. The neighbourhood understands that.
 
Isn't it disingenuous of you to treat Parkdale monolithically? Certainly sections were redeveloped and are high density, but other areas/properties don't scream "this is my highest and best use!" The two mini plazas kitty corner from each other at King and Dufferin for example are prefect spots to intensify. The neighbourhood is arguing about how much intensification they can handle of course, but neither of those buildings are defensible as they currently stand.

Those aren't the only two spots that could handle redevelopment in the area, and 6 Noble is one of the others.

42
 
To build on that, not only are some current buildings not the 'highest and best', we've also seen cases where things are moving backwards. Here we have a shabby, if well-loved, plaza which was recently demolished for...a Green P. Hurrah.

Parking Lot1.JPG


Parking Lot.JPG
 

Attachments

  • Parking Lot.JPG
    Parking Lot.JPG
    176.7 KB · Views: 903
  • Parking Lot1.JPG
    Parking Lot1.JPG
    169.5 KB · Views: 896
Never mind the ever-shrinking average household size, which means that even as these neighbourhoods may have remained stable in terms of number of dwelling units, their population density has actually declined. A neighbourhood without new construction is really a neighbourhood in decline.

Which is not to say that this proposal is the right one for this site (I'm not convinced, especially about the design), but I hate hearing people trot out the myth of the "stable" neighbourhood to justify their anti-development attitudes. Aversion to change isn't good policy.
 
interchange42 said:
Isn't it disingenuous of you to treat Parkdale monolithically? Certainly sections were redeveloped and are high density, but other areas/properties don't scream "this is my highest and best use!" The two mini plazas kitty corner from each other at King and Dufferin for example are prefect spots to intensify. The neighbourhood is arguing about how much intensification they can handle of course, but neither of those buildings are defensible as they currently stand.

Those aren't the only two spots that could handle redevelopment in the area, and 6 Noble is one of the others.

42
Click to expand...
Parkdale has the 8th highest density of a neighbourhood according to the 2006 census. So, if an architect is whining that the area should/must take more density (and must take his building as-is) and won't because the official plan is broken, well, there is no credibility to his argument. I never said never develop, never redevelop. I just pointed out that the area is densely populated (14,000 per sq km) and does not need intensification. There is no argument to be made that Parkdale needs more density.
 
smably said:
Never mind the ever-shrinking average household size, which means that even as these neighbourhoods may have remained stable in terms of number of dwelling units, their population density has actually declined. A neighbourhood without new construction is really a neighbourhood in decline.

Which is not to say that this proposal is the right one for this site (I'm not convinced, especially about the design), but I hate hearing people trot out the myth of the "stable" neighbourhood to justify their anti-development attitudes. Aversion to change isn't good policy.
Click to expand...

There is also the myth that new redevelopment always improves a neighbourhood. :)
 
ProjectEnd said:
So if you're not against development / redevelopment, why are you against this? And why do you keep impugning Sweeny?
Click to expand...
See the original post. The architect was complaining (whining imo) about the official plan making neighbourhoods sacrosanct. I'm not against redevelopment of the site. In my area north-west of the area, we've had several redevelopments where the developer wanted their proposal to go through unchanged - Giraffe and Turner&Porter on Roncesvalles, yet we've had redevelopment on Sorauren Ave and on Howard Park/Dundas where the developer has worked with community. It can be done. Giraffe seems to be abandoned and the T&P site seems to be at a standstill. When you've got a neighbourhood where people care about the neighbourhood they are going to respond to development notices. And if a proposal seems overly large, or won't respond to community concerns over other issues, then the neighbourhood will come out. It's not nimby - it's engagement. Remember, this is one of the neighbourhoods where site controls were put on over the large number of bars opening. People care, it's not silly, which is what the architect seems to feel.
 
So if the Roncy / Parkdale community is so 'understanding', why did 383 Sorauren have to go to the OMB? You cited it as an example of a developer "working with the community", yet it was still 'too large' and Gairloch had to go through the expense and time of the Board.

Perks, though a smart guy and very on point when it comes to social issues, is utterly clueless about how land is valued and projects are brought forward so it's almost impossible to work with his office to get something approved. Without a positive voice in the community and on council, many simply see their approval as coming from the OMB from the start and just build that into what they propose and the timeline it will take to get it done.
 
ProjectEnd said:
So if the Roncy / Parkdale community is so 'understanding', why did 383 Sorauren have to go to the OMB? You cited it as an example of a developer "working with the community", yet it was still 'too large' and Gairloch had to go through the expense and time of the Board.

Perks, though a smart guy and very on point when it comes to social issues, is utterly clueless about how land is valued and projects are brought forward so it's almost impossible to work with his office to get something approved. Without a positive voice in the community and on council, many simply see their approval as coming from the OMB from the start and just build that into what they propose and the timeline it will take to get it done.
Click to expand...

I agree, to some developers, it is a game. How to jimmy the system. But it doesn't always work, like I mentioned with Giraffe and T&P. If projects went through without having to go to the OMB, then other developers could learn from that. Most of the time they get their way at the OMB. But, by then they have wasted a year or more. (And usually scaled back or modified their original proposal anyway) So why do it? Why not work with the city and the neighbourhood? I guess they don't expect the engagement they get in Roncy/Parkdale and/or are unfamiliar with the neighbourhood history. East of Dufferin, there was a different story. There are lots of recent towers.

As for Perks, I would say he is still popular in the area. Not popular with bars and developers, so he's picked his allies wisely. And he has stood up for the residents. People expect to hear when a new development is proposed. And he gets neighbourhood meetings organized. I don't think a businessman makes a good councillor myself. It's all dollars and cents. And I think the voters have agreed with that for the last few elections.
 
Developers almost always prefer to work with the city than the OMB as the process is much quicker. OMB is typically a last resort. If the city is either blowing smoke, usually due to the local Councillor, or refusing to even discuss something somewhat reasonable in the eyes of the developer / their planning consultant, then they go to the board.

And yes, OMB hearings usually end in a settlement where the developer still doesn't entirely "win". Both sides agree to approve it in a settlement. On the rare occasion that it actually proceeds to a hearing, a developer can lose out very easily. Giraffe was one example, though that is getting quite old. There were two high profile "losses" for developers I can think of off the top of my head last year, and that is Grid Condos at Jarvis and Dundas that was forced to provide a 12.5m tower setback to the property to the rear, and a student residence tower north of Gerrard on Church that was forced to go back to the drawing board due to a lack of respect for an adjacent heritage building.

What many have to realize is that a development rarely, rarely gets cancelled because of the OMB. Generally, if a developer proposes something, something will get built there. The question is more so what is appropriate. What the OMB does all the time is shoot down specific proposals and force revisions.
 
Last edited:
Just got caught up on this thread. I think much of this dialogue gets resolved if the building being proposed was up to par w Sweeny's other work and/or at least rendered properly. Looks pretty lacklustre to me.
Tough to "invest" in architecture when the margins are still very tight on the rental side of the business. Architecture seems to get left behind when developers/property owners need to "invest" in better/more expensive building systems and materials that will stand the test of time.
 
interchange42 said:
Isn't it disingenuous of you to treat Parkdale monolithically? Certainly sections were redeveloped and are high density, but other areas/properties don't scream "this is my highest and best use!" The two mini plazas kitty corner from each other at King and Dufferin for example are prefect spots to intensify. The neighbourhood is arguing about how much intensification they can handle of course, but neither of those buildings are defensible as they currently stand.

Those aren't the only two spots that could handle redevelopment in the area, and 6 Noble is one of the others.

42
Click to expand...

So what if you can find a plot or two that is not developed to your liking. That by itself is no justification to increase the above-average density in Parkdale. Densification is not an argument for development for its own sake.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top