The NIMBY's prevail at last nights meeting.
Over 1000 people turned away from the meeting because they were beyond the 1000 person capacity.
virtually every resident from the area showed up to the meeting to hear the Planner, City traffic and FCR stumble through a presentation that could not address the questions and concerns of the audience.
Since there seems to be a huge planning contingent on this board, I would like you to explain to me how putting a 41 foot podium to the property line fits into a neighbourhood that is surrounded of 2 story detached homes?
Humbertown is surrounded by 3 residential streets. The biggest of them to be Royal York which is single lane each way.
How does that type of planning fit into a community such as this?
Seriously, I am not a planner and as you can tell, I'm what you you guys have been referring to the NIMBY.
While I respect this might be a great design, layout and function, I cannot appreciate that it BLENDS in with the neighbourhood.
Also, please site any other project in the city that this exact road configuration, abutting residential neighbourhood and development size exist in Toronto? They don't exist in FCR's portfolio. All their projects are at a major intersection, abut commercial lands, or 4 lane roadways.
I hope you weren't among the hoards who attacked the Ryerson planning student for speaking up for this project - a sterling moment for the HVVRA to be sure.
Residents at the meeting last night were concerned about the height, density, built form and traffic impact of the proposal. Unfortunatley they were unable to articulate what they themselves want and many simply rambled about their own qualifications before asking a question which revealed they had no idea what they were talking about in the first place. One man claimed that 50,000 liters of water flow every minute under the site (incorrect) while another mistook a green park for a grey parking lot and aggressively questioned the proponent why they had paved over his green space (they hadn't). The almost four-hour meeting was oftentimes sadly Tea Party-esque and revealed much about the vicious nature of us as individuals when something we value is threatened.
Councillor Lindsay-Luby provided residents with a sheet asking them to check a box indicating if they were 'for' or 'against' the proposal by First Capital Realty. Looking over shoulders and seated individuals, I didn't see one sheet with the 'for' box ticked. Comments were generic - "My property value will go down," "Traffic is already terrible, why make it worse?," "Why do the towers have to be so high?" etc. Unfortunately, while Lindsay-Luby's sheet provided space for 'comments,' residents were not asked directly what they thought would be better.
There was also a great deal of misinformation being passed around by the HVVRA in the form of leaflets and a newsletter. Unfortunately, the City had brought along the applicant's original submission (five towers) and residents were basing much of their vitriol on outdated information.
The leaflet for example, claims that: "the 21 storey tower, with the high ceiling heights is actually 75 meters or 246 feet which would make it approximately 50% higher than the existing 17 storey building across from Humbertown." Given that
Humber Vista is actually
54 meters, the new building would only be 28% taller and the statement becomes more than disingenuous (lie?).
Another claim (repeated by the resident) was that: "the 'two storey' base is not really two storeys - it is 12.5m, or 41ft - higher than any of your homes." This seems scary until one realizes that the average two storey home peaks at between 8 and 10 meters depending on its size (OBC). 12.5m is actually a perfect height for the first setback and there further setbacks above that.
Next: "FCR will destroy more than 140 trees at Humbertown, many of which are mature trees situated on both its property and the City property...and remove all of the grass and landscaped berms that screen the plaza." The Landscape Architect (I forget which firm) addressed this rather well last night by reminding residents that the proposal will add more than 180,000 square feet of green, permeable surface in the form of green roofs and new paving techniques. In addition, the parking lot will sit atop a oil/grit separator and several stormwater holding-tanks as part of a broader stormwater management and water purification program. He also debunked the claim that any native or mature trees would be destroyed as the plan only calls for the removal of trees planted after the plaza was constructed (1956). None of these trees are classified as 'mature' and many of them are 'foreign' according to the arborist's report.
Next: "When FCR talks about storeys, they are not storey like storeys in your home - they are high ceiling storeys and the buildings are actually higher than you think." What patent fearmongering. Could I therefore say: 'when the HVVRA opens its collective mouth, its not like when a regular lunatic does so - they are actually crazier and less informed then you think.' Actually one of those two statements
is factual.
The claim that this will lie on 'three residential streets' is also untrue and and is particularly misleading since it
seems to be true. Roads are
classified in the City of Toronto and while the HVVRA would like you to believe that RY is a Local Residential Road, the fact is it's an
Arterial which has residences along it. What's more, The Kingsway is a
Collector and Dundas, slightly to the south, is also an
Arterial. These are not small roads and have the capacity to be further upgraded in the future.
And the propaganda goes on and on, with: "the future of our neighbourhood is at stake" being an oft-used phrase in all distributed documents.
I'm critical of much of what is foisted on us today but Urban Strategies, Levitt Goodman and, dare I say it, Tridel have come up with an intelligent plan which balances a variety of uses and typologies to feel pretty damn urbane. One of my (and others I'm sure) biggest problems with the Shops at Don Mills is how the retail and residential components are not integrated but isolated and compartmentalized across the site. Instead of having one or two levels of retail with commercial or residential components above, we are left with a quaint, if a little tacky, outdoor mall surrounded by condos - a 6.5 / 10 at best. What US and LG have done is precisely that - stacked the uses into buildings which define space rather than just occupy it. Richard Rogers likes to say that: "Stairs add an important
third dimension to public space" and use of stairs and bridges accessing second-level retail and amenities (a daycare) adds a dynamism sorely lacking at SoDM.
The HVVRA likes to talk a lot about 'good' and 'bad' planning but if you were to give this job to 9/10 planning and / or architectural firms, they would come back with something resembling what is currently proposed, namely, an increase in densities and an attempt to use buildings to define public spaces. The City agrees (Official Plan), the Province agrees (PPS, GP, PTGA) and many planners and politicians agree that intensification on sites like Humbertown is the best way to grow.
100% agreed. The posters who are for this development are most likely not familiar with the area or don't go through the area much often. This type of development would go great in areas such as Bloor and Islington or Westwood Theatre Lands.
I do think that Humbertown existing strip mall needs some modernization. The Loblaws needs a good upgrade.
I am from the area and I wholeheartedly support the current plan. There was a great deal of: "why can't this go
there" bs batted around last night but it's really a moot point: FCR doesn't own that land, they own the land at Humbertown and will therefore be building there.
Now, what does it look like?
The original plan:
The Proposal:
Site Plan:
Pedestrian Plan:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8306/7980291768_a1e3b4a5dd_b.jpg
Looking north-west from The James Club across Royal York:
Looking south-west from Ashley Road:
The interior of the plaza showing green ribbon, permeable parking lot and second-level retail and amenity space.
Looking north across the parking towards the existing rental building (54m):
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8304/7980298464_c7484ae4ae_b.jpg
The first and second retail levels, looking north-west:
