Toronto

High Park Village | 117m | 39s | GWL | Zeidler

PMT

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
2,925
Reaction score
4,861
Location
Turanna
35 HIGH PARK AVE
Ward 13 - Etob. York District

►View All Properties

Three new rental buildings and a mid-rise rental building.
Proposed Use --- # of Storeys --- # of Units ---


Renderings:
upload_2016-12-30_11-41-27.png


upload_2016-12-30_11-42-9.png


upload_2016-12-30_11-42-43.png


upload_2016-12-30_11-43-17.png


upload_2016-12-30_11-43-55.png
 

Attachments

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
7,890
Reaction score
6,741
Location
North York
There's already a cluster of towers and an under-used subway station right there. Not sure what possible argument any locals could muster against this.
Well...lets see what they had to say about the Daniels condominium.

January 2012 public meeting:
More community consultation for controversial High Park Condo
Standing room only community council meeting degenerates into shouting match


A highly contested High Park condo proposal likened by one west-end councillor to "putting a gorilla in a fishbowl" was referred back for more community consultation this week after a two-and-a-half hour meeting disintegrated into a shouting match.
The controversial development application - which proposes a 14-storey, 378-residential-unit, mixed-use building directly across from High Park on Bloor Street West - drew the ire of a standing-room-only crowd at Etobicoke York Community Council (EYCC) Tuesday night.

"Like (my neighbours), I chose this area for my residence because of its peaceful, park-like setting," said Anya Poesiat, one of close to 20 local residents who spoke out against the development at the Etobicoke Civic Centre. "We therefore abhor the idea of a huge, monolithic structure to the south of us - I might say almost on top of us - and towering over High Park."

The proposal also sets aside $1.55 million in Section 37 benefits to be paid by the developer to the city and to be allocated in Ward 13 Parkdale-High Park for local parks and streetscapes and local, non-profit childcare facilities.

Nevertheless, at issue for many local residents neighbouring the development - more than 700 of whom signed a petition against its construction - is the proposal's height (which, at 52 metres, is more than twice as high as the maximum height allowed under the current zoning provisions), architecture and design (much of the building is to be fronted in 'ugly', energy inefficient glass), its spacing relative to existing buildings, its 'deficient' parking (274 parking spaces for 378 residential units), the resultant increase in traffic the building will likely bring with it and the precedent approving such an application will have on future development in the area.

"This project is simply out of scale. It's out of scale with the surrounding environment and neighbourhood and it's going to set a dangerous precedent for future development," said Mark Senderowitz, a local resident who requested the building's scope be scaled back to nine storeys at most.
March 2012 public meeting:
Tonight's meeting was as crazy as earlier ones described on the previous page. It seems these local ratepayers are an emotional bunch, certain that the sky will fall, only interested in venting, and with little patience for the grand gestures let alone the subtleties of the planning process or the law.

The meeting was chaired by City Councillor Sarah Doucette, and the current situation explained by City Planner Phil Carvalino and then by Neil Pattison, director of development for Daniels. Council in January voted to refuse the zoning by-law amendment of the 14-storey plan despite Carvalino's recommendation that it be approved. Daniels has since appealed the ruling to the OMB. Daniels will likely win its case at the OMB owing to the Planning Department recommendation. The design working group to be discussed tonight would be in regards to the Site Plan, the aspect of the project not being appealed to the OMB. It was clearly stated by Carvalino and Pattison that height and density would not be within the purview of the working group.

The meeting was opened to questions.

Other than from one local who actually asked pertinent design-related questions (but who ultimately went on too long, returning to the mike three times), everyone else was interested in everything else. Issues of height, density, shade, parking, communications with residents re: this and other local projects kept coming up again and again. Many speakers asked "why didn't you listen to us at previous meetings?" Doucette or Carvalino would explain what had happened in due course up to this point all over again, and then a couple of speakers later the floodgates of ignorance would pour forth once again. Everybody seemed exasperated that their every demand had not been met and that they were not being listened to, all the while refusing to take on board the explanations proffered in response.

The word profit was spat out by more than one person in attendance as if it were anathema in our society that anyone should make a buck on a development, and the last speaker was particularly vehement that it went along with Daniels not caring about anything else: "They've been buying up those properties for 35 years! They just want to make a profit!!" Did it matter to this woman that it was not Daniels that had assembled the property over the years? Didn't seem to. Did it matter to her or just about anyone else there that Daniels had gone to the community three times for consultation - two times more than required - and made a number of changes to improve the project? Nope. Did it matter that Daniels was now setting up a working group to talk about materials and landscaping, when they aren't required to? Not at all.

One speaker showed some sense; a lawyer (who admitted that real estate law was not his area - he was not looking for a job) tried to bring some sanity to the proceedings, letting people know that sheer passion at an OMB meeting would have null effect, and that they would have to raise money, likely $150,000, to pay for an advocate and for experts to dispute what he considered are a very well written set of reports by Daniels, their consultants, and the planning department. Some in the audience got the message, but it was not enough to turn back the tide of misinformation, blinkered fear, selective deafness and denial from most.

Despite all of the fuss, what will happen, will happen: a number of residents will be selected to sit on the design committee, there will be three meetings in late March and early April, and the rest of the case will roll on unstoppably to the OMB.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
25,591
Reaction score
12,277
Location
Toronto
Well...lets see what they had to say about the Daniels condominium.
*Sigh* I wish they could pay more attention to the actual design of said project instead. Re: this proposal - funny if residents in the existing towers raised a finger about this, considering how their buildings came about (re: Quebec/Gothic Ave development - see Shape of the City)

AoD
 

Bogtrotter

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,497
Reaction score
360
Location
Bayview Village
Interesting project. I lived in one of the buildings in that cluster for a few years- newly renovated units with hardwood floors and nice views over the park and neighbourhood. The tower in the park concept always struck me as a bit odd here with High Park right across the street. Perhaps the idea was an open and treed area that would be a sort of continuation of the wooded park..?
 

Edward Skira

http://skyrisecities.com
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
12,902
Reaction score
9,426
Location
Toronto
Interesting project. I lived in one of the buildings in that cluster for a few years- newly renovated units with hardwood floors and nice views over the park and neighbourhood. The tower in the park concept always struck me as a bit odd here with High Park right across the street. Perhaps the idea was an open and treed area that would be a sort of continuation of the wooded park..?
Probably more to do so with the general way these buildings were built back in those days. Tower in the park was the predominant way high-rise apartments were built across Toronto in the 60's and 70's.
 

jje1000

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
3,898
Reaction score
1,414
Well better get this approved and OMB-ed before the NIMBYs complain to the councillor.
 

Top