Toronto Arbo | ?m | 20s | CLC | Planning Partnership

Arbo got a mention in the 2024 Federal Budget as a property that will see rapid development.

IMG_0451.png
 
Shocking that they are sticking with a (barely altered) proposal from three years ago, while seemingly every other major proposal has been bumped up in density one, two, three etc times since then. Just a complacent, uninterested crown corporation content to do not much of anything. Between the Olympic Village, the Portlands and this chunk of Downsview the various governing bodies of Toronto seem to be the most incompetent developer in the city.
 
jmi22 said:
Shocking that they are sticking with a (barely altered) proposal from three years ago, while seemingly every other major proposal has been bumped up in density one, two, three etc times since then. Just a complacent, uninterested crown corporation content to do not much of anything. Between the Olympic Village, the Portlands and this chunk of Downsview the various governing bodies of Toronto seem to be the most incompetent developer in the city.
Click to expand...

I think you're very premature in drawing that conclusion.

There are no actual buildings moving forward just yet. Though there will be soon.

I think Canada Lands has been excellent here and in the overall Downsview Plan thus far.

But let's see how execution roles out.
 
@DSC drew my attention to this:

1724608865179.png


@HousingNowTO will wish to make note.

Taken from: https://www.clc-sic.ca/enabling-new-housing

Edit to add:

This is one of 3 parcels at 1350 Sheppard West that is currently out for proposals, but two others are open for feedback:

1724609947211.png


Red is out for proposals, green is open for feedback.
 
With the Liberals so far behind in the polls does anyone take their announcements seriously anymore?

I don't know about you, but I'm far more interested in Pierre Poilievre's housing plan.
 
Brands said:
With the Liberals so far behind in the polls does anyone take their announcements seriously anymore?

I don't know about you, but I'm far more interested in Pierre Poilievre's housing plan.
Click to expand...
Working under the assumption that the Federal Liberal-NDP agreement might hold for another 12-ish months, so -- our volunteers work with the people who are actually in-power today.

Thus far, Pierre Poilievre's housing plan for "public lands" appears to be = SELL them all off quickly with no "affordable rental housing" development conditions required on those government land-sales

2023 - https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/full-text-pierre-poilievre-speech

1724638308963.png
 
Looks like a comical lack of density for the first phase given the amount of land available, and the desire to include affordable housing while meeting TGS v4 T2. Very curious to see what kind of submissions they get for their RFEOI.
Also curious why they are marketing the site as fully zoned with a laundry list of outstanding items tied to the ominous (H) on their zoning.
 
nimby407 said:
Looks like a comical lack of density for the first phase given the amount of land available, and the desire to include affordable housing while meeting TGS v4 T2. Very curious to see what kind of submissions they get for their RFEOI.
Also curious why they are marketing the site as fully zoned with a laundry list of outstanding items tied to the ominous (H) on their zoning.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair characterization.

This site is somewhat unique in the desire to preserve a large, established forest at its centre, which occupies a huge chunk of the site. I support that move, that not only takes a lot of land away, it also creates sunlight/shadow issues as the forest can't survive without minimum reasonable hours of sunlight.

Is there room for more density here, I think the answer is yes; but its a complex issue with lots of trade-offs.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top