Toronto High Park Village | 113.95m | 35s | GWL | Arcadis

While everyone piles on against the locals and dismisses them with the term NIMBY, I think they have a point. This is not a question of a little more density in a low density neighbourhood, this is a full doubling of the density of a dense neighbourhood. One would think that the place for analysis that only identifies black and white sides to the issue of densification would be the editorial pages and letters to the editor of the Toronto Sun. Here, we should be able to take a more nuanced approach to this, which frankly, is what the Planning Department will do.

I hope the residents achieve some reductions of the plans here: these proposals represent a fundamental transformation of this neighbourhood, and from amongst the proposals, the City is going to have to demand some greenspace be assembled amongst the intensification. There will be places required for dog runs, and some sunlight reaching the ground. High Park on its own—with its significant natural heritage areas—wouldn't be able to handle the day-to-day needs of twice the current dog-owing population in the area, for example. Where's the additional public school capacity in the area, for another?

Here's to renewal in the area, but only with all of the proposals studied together and the total effect considered, and reductions made where needed to address the current and future residents' needs.

42
 
I'm usually for assembling some better green space, but we're also talking this being within 200m of the greenspace and dog runs that IS High Park.
 
Add a couple more hundred metres to get down to the High Park dog run: daily visits there not always feasible. Beyond that fenced-in area, as I mentioned, High Park has significant natural heritage areas—it's not your average park—and the entire thing cannot be turned over to dogs. Some attention must be paid to them within the three blocks of redevelopment proposed.

Meanwhile, we've published a new story about the redevelopment proposed to the east, now that renderings are in for it. Check out More High-Rise, Rental Infill Planned for High Park Community .

42
 
interchange42 said:
While everyone piles on against the locals and dismisses them with the term NIMBY, I think they have a point. This is not a question of a little more density in a low density neighbourhood, this is a full doubling of the density of a dense neighbourhood. One would think that the place for analysis that only identifies black and white sides to the issue of densification would be the editorial pages and letters to the editor of the Toronto Sun. Here, we should be able to take a more nuanced approach to this, which frankly, is what the Planning Department will do.

I hope the residents achieve some reductions of the plans here: these proposals represent a fundamental transformation of this neighbourhood, and from amongst the proposals, the City is going to have to demand some greenspace be assembled amongst the intensification. There will be places required for dog runs, and some sunlight reaching the ground. High Park on its own—with its significant natural heritage areas—wouldn't be able to handle the day-to-day needs of twice the current dog-owing population in the area, for example. Where's the additional public school capacity in the area, for another?

Here's to renewal in the area, but only with all of the proposals studied together and the total effect considered, and reductions made where needed to address the current and future residents' needs.

42
Click to expand...

There's no need for more green space this close to High Park, and it's a bit dramatic to call this a fundamental transformation. This is the ideal place for more density. I hope the developers get what they asked for.
 
The new front page story features the email of a resident prominently, which stated that the green spaces are heavily used at all times.

I do not have the time at the moment to post sample images here, but I tested that notion by looking at four of the greenspace areas on Google Streetview for every possible date going back to 2007. I could not see a single greenspace being used by a single person, including on sunny summer days. Admittedly these areas have some nice landscaping, and I can see why residents would bemoan their loss from that perspective, but these are far from spaces that are used at all times, or even apparently all that regularly.
 
Ottawan said:
The new front page story features the email of a resident prominently, which stated that the green spaces are heavily used at all times.

I do not have the time at the moment to post sample images here, but I tested that notion by looking at four of the greenspace areas on Google Streetview for every possible date going back to 2007. I could not see a single greenspace being used by a single person, including on sunny summer days. Admittedly these areas have some nice landscaping, and I can see why residents would bemoan their loss from that perspective, but these are far from spaces that are used at all times, or even apparently all that regularly.
Click to expand...

These areas are in shadows most of the time and rather unpleasant already. The city needs to keep up with infrastructure to support these developments especially in terms of school capacity.

But transit capacity and green space are two issues the area does not have. There is an abundance of these. High Park station is one of the least used stations on the bloor line. The roads around here have little traffic except on the weekends when the multitudes drive into the park with their dogs. More towers is not going to affect this at all.

This whole thing smacks of "i'm going to lose my views / my house is going to be shadowed" nimbyism.
 
I live in one of the buildings in the area right now. I have no problem with more towers being built - the city needs more rental housing, and why not here? The subway definitely has some extra capacity in this end of the city (despite what the NIMBYs will tell you), and the underground parking lots are half empty because most residents don't drive, so replacing the surface lots with something more useful makes sense to me.

That said, I do have a couple of concerns with all this. 39 stories is nearly twice the height of the tallest building in the area right now (23, I think). I'm sure they proposed higher than they want so that they can scale down later as a "compromise," but I'd like to see them scaled down to at most 30 stories. I also think they do need to preserve some space for a dog run. I don't have a dog myself, but there are a ton of dog owners in the are (the buildings are super pet friendly for the most part), and they do use those spaces, particularly early or late, or when the weather's bad and going to the park is unappealing.

If that happens, then build away!
 
As was mentioned by one of the commenters on the recent front page story, the property to the west, Grenadier Square, was granted permission by the OMB to construct two 25-storey buildings to replace the two townhome rows on the site. That may be as high as the developers will be allowed to go on this site and the 111 Pacific site to the east too.

42
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
So NIMBYs can't stand in the way of this anymore if the OMB reforms are implemented. Within 500m of the TTC station, no third party appeals.
Click to expand...
With everything that's in the pipeline i doubt the OMB is going to be dismantled overnight, they will most likely set a date for next year in which time this will probably be dealt with
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top