SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
LOL at your various rants. Just came to this thread and it’s quite amusing. I support this project 100% and most of your concerns are imaginary.
Toronto Forêt | 144.95m | 41s | Canderel | BDP Quadrangle
- Thread starter androiduk
- Start date
Develop11
New Member
No Kidding. A lot of new projects -hastily planned and will be hastily built.
Develop11
New Member
LOL to your silly response. Perhaps you are involved in developing such projects or know people who are? Certainly sounds that way so rather insincere comment.
If you read the papers - Particularly Toronto Star today (A6-Province is unprepared...) regarding the storm on Saturday. Ontarians are ill -equipped - winds will become more extreme and {excerpted-- 'increase in frequency and magnitude...as temperatures rise...making large glass condos in the city even hotter...only about a third of the older buildings where half a million people in Toronto and the GTA live have backup electricity supplies..'.
There will be more wind storms and flooding in coming years and low-rise to mid-rise neighbourhoods and older buildings that have backup generators will be the best place to be if governments and businesses concentrate on this part of the market using expertise from the building industry and focus money there. Think what a masterplan community would look like if it integrated the old and new technology to make us safer in our homes.
Develop11
New Member
In your mind nobody is entitled if it gets in the way of development of 30 story plus towers.
Develop11
New Member
To Dr. T.O. David and others who posted on page 9
Sorry - missed responding yesterday to your post above. The park on the property was suggested by Canderel when they announced their partnership with Kingsett. Before that, it was slated to be an apartment building with seniors centre and children's daycare in the building complex. There are already many children's schools and daycare facilities in the neighbourhood so I gathered this daycare would be for residents of 1467 Bathurst and adjacent lot. I believe there was supposed to be an affordable housing component of about 11 units but don't quote me on this.
There was an article about the development and a resident of the area said the park suggested was the size of Wells Hill Park across the street - so a small park intended that with the massive digging and congestion would compromise the air quality not to mention the extra strain on infrastructure that the new building would bring.
This large development of three towers was seen as a Ford transit hub move. The ambition of it was so overwhelming that people started to protest right away when City Planners for the area promoted it as a 'Tower in the Park' a few years ago. What they did not tell us was that the site was still being remediated because of the gas station leak. Why not be transparent about this one asks? Why indeed. Residents did not like having this very important remediation hidden from them. Many people had lived in the area for years and had no idea why the lot was vacant. They did know there was a gas station there but they just though it went out of business.
Then it was announced that Bentall Green had bowed out as a partner with Kingsett and Canderel was in. They changed project to a condo building. I guess so it would fit in with the condo building to the west of it and the condo building to the south of it...
The community cannot work collaboratively with developers because even though we go through the consultations, we feel that our concerns were not met at the outset. What could happen --Shaving 8 floors off a 30 plus story 3 tower project? . Having more traffic congestion, more pollution and Airbnb guests along with the wind tunnels and impact on infrastructure? Sorry not a win for the neighbourhood. If you go further in these threads, you will find the one where I quote a Toronto Star article today on the storm and its impact last week. Tall glass towers are in jeopardy because of climate change as much as we are --not a win/win situation for anybody.
I don't know if you are aware but the Casa Loma Residents Association has asked for the data from the remediation and Councillor Matlow did in a City Council meeting last year ask for a study of the area to be done regarding concerns about the leaking gas station site. The study was prepared by Suncor. Data which they point to on public sites as a way to show transparency is redacted and has numerous pages. Canderel and Kingsett have also refused to hand it over telling us that the City should give us the information. That has not happened. It is difficult to go into consultations with groups who are giving you the runaround. UPDATE DECEMBER 2022. TO CLARIFY-- THE DEVELOPERS DO NOT NEED A PERMIT TO PUT UP A SALES CENTRE AND IT CAN SIT THERE FOR 3 YEARS. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALES CENTRE, THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHERE THE SUB-CONTRACTORS FOR THE DEVELOPER CANDEREL ABUSED THE BYLAWS REGARDING SIDEWALK AND ROAD OBSTRUCTIONS AND HAD TO BE WATCHED TO MAKE SURE THEY DID NOT OVERSTEP THEIR BOUNDRIES AS THEY DID ON THREE OCCASIONS. DURING A HIGH WIND, A HEAVY FENCE PROTECTING THE PROPERTY FELL OVER ON THE SIDEWALK AT ABOUT 6 PM ON A SATURDAY. 311 WAS CONTACTED AND THERE IS A RECORD OF IT.
REMEDIATION - IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE STILL REMEDIATING THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF SALES CENTRE WITH RAISED PLANT BEDS. THIS FROM A GAS STATION THAT WAS THERE FOR 60 YEARS AND SPREAD A GAS PLUME ACROSS THE STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOVE TO MEASURE CONTAMINATION LEVELS AT 490 ST.CLAIR AVENUE WEST TO THE EAST OF 1467 BATHURST STREET.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TWO TOWERS ARE NOW PLANNED INSTEAD OF THREE. THERE IS A RUMOUR THAT THE ENTIRE TWO TOWER DEVELOPMENT WAS SOLD TO INTERNATIONAL BUYERS BEFORE THE SALES CENTRE WENT UP. THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WERE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ONLY TO THE PEOPLE ATTENDING CONSULTATION MEETINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, AS A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, I NEVER SAW OR HEARD WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONSULTATIONS, i WAS ONLY TOLD THAT CITY PLANNING HAD COMPLETED THEIR CONSULTATIONS AND HAD RECENTLY TAKEN SITE CONTROL. THE RECORD OF SITE CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND THEREFORE DEVELOPERS KINGSETT/CANDEREL CANNOT MOVE FORWARD TO BUILD.
ANY PEOPLE IN THE SALES CENTRE FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME SHOULD REPORT ANY EXPERIENCE WITH ODD ODOURS,DIZZINESS, NAUSEA OR HEADACHES.
In any event, there are supposed working groups scheduled and the sales office is going up without any consultation as they do not have a record of site condition yet to develop. If the contractors do start to feel dizzy, nauseous or get headaches from working on the site they should report it. This would be transparency.
I appreciate and respect your point of view but at this stage a working group will not work...
Sorry - missed responding yesterday to your post above. The park on the property was suggested by Canderel when they announced their partnership with Kingsett. Before that, it was slated to be an apartment building with seniors centre and children's daycare in the building complex. There are already many children's schools and daycare facilities in the neighbourhood so I gathered this daycare would be for residents of 1467 Bathurst and adjacent lot. I believe there was supposed to be an affordable housing component of about 11 units but don't quote me on this.
There was an article about the development and a resident of the area said the park suggested was the size of Wells Hill Park across the street - so a small park intended that with the massive digging and congestion would compromise the air quality not to mention the extra strain on infrastructure that the new building would bring.
This large development of three towers was seen as a Ford transit hub move. The ambition of it was so overwhelming that people started to protest right away when City Planners for the area promoted it as a 'Tower in the Park' a few years ago. What they did not tell us was that the site was still being remediated because of the gas station leak. Why not be transparent about this one asks? Why indeed. Residents did not like having this very important remediation hidden from them. Many people had lived in the area for years and had no idea why the lot was vacant. They did know there was a gas station there but they just though it went out of business.
Then it was announced that Bentall Green had bowed out as a partner with Kingsett and Canderel was in. They changed project to a condo building. I guess so it would fit in with the condo building to the west of it and the condo building to the south of it...
The community cannot work collaboratively with developers because even though we go through the consultations, we feel that our concerns were not met at the outset. What could happen --Shaving 8 floors off a 30 plus story 3 tower project? . Having more traffic congestion, more pollution and Airbnb guests along with the wind tunnels and impact on infrastructure? Sorry not a win for the neighbourhood. If you go further in these threads, you will find the one where I quote a Toronto Star article today on the storm and its impact last week. Tall glass towers are in jeopardy because of climate change as much as we are --not a win/win situation for anybody.
I don't know if you are aware but the Casa Loma Residents Association has asked for the data from the remediation and Councillor Matlow did in a City Council meeting last year ask for a study of the area to be done regarding concerns about the leaking gas station site. The study was prepared by Suncor. Data which they point to on public sites as a way to show transparency is redacted and has numerous pages. Canderel and Kingsett have also refused to hand it over telling us that the City should give us the information. That has not happened. It is difficult to go into consultations with groups who are giving you the runaround. UPDATE DECEMBER 2022. TO CLARIFY-- THE DEVELOPERS DO NOT NEED A PERMIT TO PUT UP A SALES CENTRE AND IT CAN SIT THERE FOR 3 YEARS. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SALES CENTRE, THERE WERE OCCASIONS WHERE THE SUB-CONTRACTORS FOR THE DEVELOPER CANDEREL ABUSED THE BYLAWS REGARDING SIDEWALK AND ROAD OBSTRUCTIONS AND HAD TO BE WATCHED TO MAKE SURE THEY DID NOT OVERSTEP THEIR BOUNDRIES AS THEY DID ON THREE OCCASIONS. DURING A HIGH WIND, A HEAVY FENCE PROTECTING THE PROPERTY FELL OVER ON THE SIDEWALK AT ABOUT 6 PM ON A SATURDAY. 311 WAS CONTACTED AND THERE IS A RECORD OF IT.
REMEDIATION - IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE STILL REMEDIATING THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE OF SALES CENTRE WITH RAISED PLANT BEDS. THIS FROM A GAS STATION THAT WAS THERE FOR 60 YEARS AND SPREAD A GAS PLUME ACROSS THE STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOVE TO MEASURE CONTAMINATION LEVELS AT 490 ST.CLAIR AVENUE WEST TO THE EAST OF 1467 BATHURST STREET.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT TWO TOWERS ARE NOW PLANNED INSTEAD OF THREE. THERE IS A RUMOUR THAT THE ENTIRE TWO TOWER DEVELOPMENT WAS SOLD TO INTERNATIONAL BUYERS BEFORE THE SALES CENTRE WENT UP. THE PUBLIC CONSULTATIONS WERE NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ONLY TO THE PEOPLE ATTENDING CONSULTATION MEETINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, AS A RESIDENT OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD, I NEVER SAW OR HEARD WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE CONSULTATIONS, i WAS ONLY TOLD THAT CITY PLANNING HAD COMPLETED THEIR CONSULTATIONS AND HAD RECENTLY TAKEN SITE CONTROL. THE RECORD OF SITE CONDITION HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND THEREFORE DEVELOPERS KINGSETT/CANDEREL CANNOT MOVE FORWARD TO BUILD.
ANY PEOPLE IN THE SALES CENTRE FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME SHOULD REPORT ANY EXPERIENCE WITH ODD ODOURS,DIZZINESS, NAUSEA OR HEADACHES.
In any event, there are supposed working groups scheduled and the sales office is going up without any consultation as they do not have a record of site condition yet to develop. If the contractors do start to feel dizzy, nauseous or get headaches from working on the site they should report it. This would be transparency.
I appreciate and respect your point of view but at this stage a working group will not work...
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
How could this be a "Ford transit hub move" when the rezoning application predated his Premiership by 6 months and the general concept of this project by close to two years?
Develop11
New Member
Developers were able to increase the height and add the towers because of the Ford transit hub move using this as a reason for doing so. Don't forget, the original plan before the gasoline leak was reported in 2001 was for a townhouse development which would have been more in scale with the neighbourhoods to the south, west and north. When the townhouse development was abandoned because they could not build on the contaminated land, things changed, others moved in and the condos on the south and west side were approved. I believe the 1467 Bathurst Street project was put forward as apartment towers in 2018 at a lower height (the upper 30+ add on was approved in Community Council in 2020 I believe. The amendments went through without many in the area knowing about it. Did you know about them?
Northern Light
Superstar
If you just scroll back in the thread, you'll see Urban Toronto has been following this project since its inception. Every iteration, and change in ownership has been documented and discussed.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
This post is wrong from the first sentence. If you don't know how the process works, that's fine, many here will help with that. But if you just come to gesticulate wildly, with little or no basis in fact, either you're going to get trolled, or folks will just stop paying attention.
Develop11
New Member
How is it wrong from the first sentence? I know that buildings are given height allowances that are voted on and get passed through Community and City Council. There are tribunals that have been called various names LPAT, etc if people object but there don't seem to be many cases that win. Are you saying this is not a fact?? The amendments for height on this building project (1467) happened about two years ago. The towers were lower and before that, a long time ago a townhouse development was planned as one of the first ideas for this site.
I frankly would prefer it if you would stop paying attention to my posts. You are the one who is gesticulating wildly with suggestions of trolling if I do not agree with you.
Develop11
New Member
Yes, I have seen the information and it is great to have it. I realize this is mostly a forum for people in the industry and so it is interesting to see what they comment on.
whatever
Senior Member
I'm not sure exactly how far back, but there were at least two previous iterations of towers on that lot. There was some back and forth over the ownership of the St Mike's parking lot to the west of Joe Fresh (going back to the original sale of that land to Loblaws) that contributed to the changing plans, and there's also been a couple iterations of replacements for the arena and bleachers. This definitely isn't something that originated in 2018, regardless of how much one might want to blame Ford for everything.
(And incidentally, I thought the real remediation issue here was the tannery, not the gas station?)
(And incidentally, I thought the real remediation issue here was the tannery, not the gas station?)
Northern Light
Superstar
Because you reference the Ford government's 'transit hubs' as having something to do with the height here.
Let's offer some clarity.
By transit hub, what you are meaning in Planning jargon is an MTSA or Major Transit Station Area.
The idea of MTSAs was not even on the table from the province when the current height was approved.
There were zero MTSAs proposed or in force.
Uhhh, sorta.
Ok, 'Height Allowance' should be understood as permitted height under the Zoning by-law.
There are existing zoning by-laws that cover every property in the City.
In most cases where one sees a planning Application that involves a ZBA (Zoning By-Law Amendment) a height increase is being sought. (Though not always)
Planning reviews the request, and considers this in the context of a number of policies in the City's Official Plan; and various Provincial planning mandates, which now include the above-mentioned MTSAs, but did not at the time this proposal was being finalized.
The local councillor and community are consulted.
But Planning (generally) has to make a recommendation based on approved policy; though admittedly this can be torqued from time to time.
The City does routinely oppose height requests seen as unreasonable; however, as also noted above, developers have the option of appealing a Council decision (or indecision) to a Provincial Review body, previously known as the OMB and LPAT and now known as the OLT or Ontario Land Tribunal.
That body does have an overall tendency to be development friendly, and the City must be mindful of losing completely should a proposal come before said Tribunal for a hearing. As such it is often the case that the City works out either an initial approval, or a pre-hearing settlement based on what they they think would likely be approved.
The permitted density on this site has involved at least two 25 storey towers for the last 24 years as per this article:
:format(webp)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/gta/2021/06/04/condo-project-planned-for-former-st-michaels-college-school-land-includes-incredible-allotment-of-open-space/canderel_development.jpg)
Condo project planned for former St. Michael’s College School land includes ‘incredible’ allotment of open space
“Open spaces, public squares, parks, are more important than ever to us. This is where we talk, and play together and soon, will congregate more together,” says councillor Josh Matlow.
From the above:
Yes, a further height/density increase was later obtained.
However, there are multiple factors at play as to why; it's not a rubber stamp from anyone.
In the (presumably) final iteration now before us, the site was reorganized in order to optimize parks and open space.
That may or may not be to your liking; or good planning from your perspective. Debate is fair.
But to be clear a trade was made to obtain benefits for the community in exchange for certain changes to massing (the way the density is shaped on the site) .
That's both a political and planning call; with the former almost certainly informed by a Councillor's desire to be reelected, which is to say, the Councillor felt this was the best
deal to be had; and in fact went out selling it as a pretty good one. He and we will find out how much his constituents agree this November.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
And then by what authority, legal or otherwise do you make that assertion?
GenerationLee
Senior Member
How is this neighbourhood midrise? It's decidedly been a lowrise area with a collection of highrise structures for over 50 years now. It'll continue to be as much...but slowly more high density development is occuring, which is a good thing. Being so close to two subway stations, which are linked by a somewhat reliable streetcar is a huge incentive for building higher density.