Toronto 685 Warden | 161.95m | 49s | Choice Properties | Giannone Petricone

TossYourJacket said:
It feels like everyone in charge at the city is like "well I already own a home so I don't have to care about housing affordability", so instead they obsess over the idea of picture-perfect suburban neighbourhoods at the expense of actually building housing, while having no empathy for the people who are being screwed by those decisions. It's so frustrating.
Click to expand...
Most of the people in-charge at the City respond to those who actually show-up for the Public-Meetings... and some of the most "angry-locals" meetings we have ever attended were at the HOUSING NOW site at Warden & St. Clair...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1172310739979128832
 
^ I think that highlights one of the problems of building density to justify suburban expansions. Many of the same people who want subways in the suburbs don't want the environment to change in any meaningful way to accommodate the expansions.

Also goes to show new subways are not any sort of guarantee of development nor increased density.
 
syn said:
Also goes to show new subways are not any sort of guarantee of development nor increased density.
Click to expand...
That's WHY we like the current Federal Campaign promises to require City's to up-zone in order to get access to Federal funding for Transit expansion.
 
HousingNowTO said:
That's WHY we like the current Federal Campaign promises to require City's to up-zone in order to get access to Federal funding for Transit expansion.
Click to expand...

It's a great idea. I just wonder how effective it'll be when Federal governments are quite reticent to fund these projects in the first place.

Will these requirements fly out the window when it's politically advantageous?
 
syn said:
It's a great idea. I just wonder how effective it'll be when Federal governments are quite reticent to fund these projects in the first place.

Will these requirements fly out the window when it's politically advantageous?
Click to expand...
Maybe.... BUT we can make them all very "politically-uncomfortable" in the Media whenever that might happen...
 
JoshR said:
Crime?????? They can’t be serious… have they ever visited Cataraqui just down the street???
Click to expand...

While being 100% clear that their concerns are unreasonable and often expressed..............very poorly, I suspect that Cataraqui is exactly what they fear.

That's unfair to residents of that community; but your very statement is exactly what would drive that fear. (I don't mean that unkindly, but I do think it's accurate)
When people hear 'affordable housing' they automatically think TCHC and they think of the least well maintained community with the highest (or highest profile) crime.

Getting people to realize that for all the troubles in some TCHC communities, most, are overwhelmingly safe........

and

That what is being proposed is not the same as what was built in the past............this is mixed income...........affordable is often not RGI (rent-geared-to-income) and the communities are not insular/cut-off from their surroundings in the way
that many were in the past.
 
Last edited:
Good thing EglintonCrosstown is coming soon.
Can't imagine what BloorDanforth would be like if it had to cram still more commuters once(if) these projects get built.
 
Preliminary Report on this one to the January 10th meeting of Scarborough Community Council:


The City has a few concerns:

1639691418514.png


Looking backwards from the conclusion, we see some other matters up for review:

1639691479772.png


I'm pleased to see that Planning hit on the issue of the street network not linking up to areas to the east; I feel that would be an important change.

Then there's the most pro-forma bit:

1639691590283.png


I broke this last one out:

1639691622266.png


Ahem.......area needs a supermarket!!!

Kind of peculiar not to see that when the site is being developed by the real estate arm of a grocer; and the site is currently zoned for a supermarket!
 
A few things to update on this one.

An appeal was filed to the OLT in April of this year.

The first Case Management hearing apparently already happened/begun on July 11th.

A Request for Direction Report (seemingly belated) is headed to next week's Council meeting.

There are some weird typos, in this report.........the rec's of which are confidential

 
interchange42 said:
Is the City not going to get slaughtered on their opposition to this at the OLT as this is within an MTSA? Why oppose this impressive density when it's right beside Warden subway station? Argh!

42
Click to expand...

My impression is that the City doesn't take huge issue w/the density, it is an issue, but others are more pressing; where density may be an added factor. The City is firm in wanting the road to connect through (which I have advocated for); and also wants a supermarket in the mix; among other things. There is also an issue around wind levels at grade being a bit hostile. I'll have to go back and look at the studies on that one.

Which, before posting, I did.......so:


The exceptions are at the northwest corner of Tower E, the southwest corner of
Tower F, and the area between Towers A and C, where wind conditions are
expected to be conducive to fast walking or uncomfortable in the winter
(Figure 8b).

These are winter wind conditions internal to the site:

1660076166561.png


For better understanding, green is most comfortable, can sit/stand/walk/fast walk/run

Red is uncomfortable no matter what you're doing.

So Orange is comfortable provided you are 'fast walking'; uncomfortable for leisurely walking/standing/sitting

Yellow is uncomfortable for standing or sitting, but fine if you're moving.

***

This is same graphic but for the perimeter for the site:

1660076316538.png


The City would like changes to building orientation/siting/massing with an eye to more green and no red and as little orange as possible.

****

I can't speak to what arguments will be made by the City at the OLT; but I think those I outlined above are fairly reasonable and don't need to result in a drastic scaling down of the site. Though some trimming may be in order to come up with a workable massing.
 
Last edited:
Lobbying by Choice has stepped up a quite a bit in the last month.....regular chats w/Cllr. Crawford or his staff.

OLT Merit Hearing isn't until March 11th, 2024.

I don't know, but my thought is that with the Councillor potentially departing (he's the PC candidate in Guildwood for Mitzi Hunter's old seat) there may be a desire to get this wrapped and out the door, possibly at July Council.

If the Councillor leaves, they'll have to catch the new person up to speed, their take is an unknown.....

Just a thought.
 
This one is before the next meeting of City Council with a Request for Direction Report. It is a settlement offer.

Agenda Item History 2024.CC14.9

Agenda Item History 2024.CC14.9
secure.toronto.ca

The offer is public:

1706799188485.png

1706799223571.png

1706799304347.png


1706799366113.png

@HousingNowTO will wish to make note of the applicant's openness to providing affordable housing here.

Revised Site Plan:

1706799495777.png


1706799549327.png


@Paclo is duly flagged.

Comments. Site layout is improved; but I note the City was unable to secure a supermarket, on a site being developed by a supermarket chain's REIT.......sigh.

Looks like a future road-connection to the east is contemplated now which is good.

The park isn't ultra small, but is small. Given that adjacent lands to the north are also being redeveloped, I think it would have been ideal to coordinate and obtain a single, larger park.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top