Toronto Karma Condos | 165.8m | 50s | Lifetime | a—A

it took me all afternoon to realize you are all looking for work in development! all the best, signing off. DB
 
Hi Diane,

I'm actually a local resident in the area and look forward to this lot being redeveloped. There clearly are some design issues to be worked out and addressed and I would suggest that you focus your efforts on these aspects to the proposal rather then height and density. From a planning perspective the zoning issues with height and density that you've identified really aren't relevant - the focus of such discussions will be based on the Official Plan, Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan that all have policies directing future growth to sites such as 9-21 Grenville Street. The site is mere steps from the College TTC station, College Streetcar and the surrounding approved development densities and heights are consistent with the proposed built form. You mentioned parkland, which I don’t understand as the site is currently a surface parking lot – the developer will be required to make a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment as prescribed under sec 42 of the planning act (sec 37 was mentioned by another poster before, but that is an altogether different ‘box’ of public benefits that can be extracted from the developer).

Height and density is not an issue, nor should be on this site. What are issues that local residents groups should apply pressure on are items such as heritage preservation, integration with the public realm at street level, access and design integration towards St. Luke's lane, setbacks to preserve view corridors and appropriated address the street, quality of the public realm at street level, high quality building glazing materials, quality of the architecture.... unfortunately these far more important concerns usually take a back seat to height and density.

The legislative framework governing any zoning by-law amendment and Official Plan Amendment for this site supports high density development, it would be unfortunate if a debate about height (which will get approved at or near what's been proposed anyway) sidetracks what elements really should be scrutinized in greater detail.


- Mike
 
Last edited:
^ A well thought out and sensible post as always Mike. Its unfortunatly true, that height and density seem to take most attention when it comes to issues of most developments.
 
dianeburke said:
sadly my property value has not gone up since the condos went up Murano/Burano...you are paying lipserve to democracy, you can nicely say "you are welcome to your opnion' but that is not the tenor on these boards. far from it.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you live in the Gallery Condos. I looked at several units in there back in the mid-90's when I was looking to get into the market. I remember them being pretty cool designs and spacious, but the absence of balconies ended up being a deal breaker for me. I'd say the 1+ solarium & 2 bedrooms are better than anything in Murano if that makes you feel any better (again, presuming you live there). Interestingly properties in this building are pretty reasonable, I don't know why. Maybe it's the coroners office across the street, who knows.
I'd say an attractive addition to this street could only be a good thing. Aside from the noise, which half of the downtown core is going through along with you during this boom, I find your objections on this project to be weak. I still don't believe that construction is happening at 4:30am, there are by-laws in place to prevent this. I'll take a walk over to the Burano site one morning around 5 am. I have to know whether or not this is happening first hand.
 
This is the land right behind 22 College where I used to rent office space. I do welcome this development, but since the presence of College subway station is invoked to justify it, I hope that access to the station will be improved at some point. The Met, ROCP I and II, Burano, Murano, Aura and now this... it is getting extremely crowded down there.
 
Mike: Thanks. That is the only reasonable reply I have received. I have asked the Administrator to shut down my account. I mistook the nature of this site and won't post in future. But your courtesy is a breath of fresh air around this site. Best, D
 
To be fair, this is a forum that celebrates heritage, design, development and the urban form in Toronto, and not really one for waging personal wars or airing personal grievances with any one specific project. There are probably forums that would be far more appropriate for that, somewhere?
 
Actually, DBurke, since you've lived in the area for 17 years, perhaps you took photos of the area mid-nineties? Would be interesting to see them here. (You've lived in the 'hood longer than probably 80% of the current residents, many of whom were either mere toddlers or not even Canadians yet!)

You belong on UT--much of the real urban toronto built form is made up of attractive Victorian lowrises. So while the Muranos and tall condos do add more people, the realty is that you're right--the real cool urban 'hoods in Toronto are lowrise. Think WQW, Blansdowne, Bloor West Village, the Danforth, etc. (Do y'all say to yourselves on a nice Saturday afternoon: "Let's go hang out on Bay St for brunch, galleries and cool street scenes."?)

Developers--step up your game please, and hire http://www.paullaurendeau.com/ to design urban 6-8s condo projects in Toronto, not just Mtl--density isn't just found in highrises.
 
Last edited:
I've lived in the area since 1988, and I still love it here, but I think we can all recognize that at some point, densification can affect quality of life, and it has been very intense within a few blocks of Yonge and College. When it is overcrowded everywhere you go and when the surrounding infrastructure is not improved (for instance, the sidewalks are too narrow on Yonge between Gerrard and Dundas, there is frequent gridlock on Gerrard, and access to College station is poor), the perceived livability of the neighbourhood deteriorates.
 
I walked past this site yesterday. I think a new development here could do wonders for Grenville. If the podium is bright and open it could really lighten up this street a little.

The comments posted above were spot on, that corridor down St. Luke Lane should be preserved. Off topic slightly, who else wishes St. Nicholas could stretch all the way down from St. Mary to Wellesley with cobblestone and then St. Luke lane the rest of the way down to Grenville? There is so much potential at that empty site between Yonge and Bay off Wellesley.
 
urbandreamer said:
You belong on UT--much of the real urban toronto built form is made up of attractive Victorian lowrises. So while the Muranos and tall condos do add more people, the realty is that you're right--the real cool urban 'hoods in Toronto are lowrise. Think WQW, Blansdowne, Bloor West Village, the Danforth, etc. (Do y'all say to yourselves on a nice Saturday afternoon: "Let's go hang out on Bay St for brunch, galleries and cool street scenes."?)
Click to expand...

Non-issue. We're talking here about the College/Bay St. area. Having said that, perhaps the poster in question would be better to relocate to one of the cool, low-rise 'nabes' you mention if living in the heart of downtown is no longer desireable to her.
 
urbandreamer said:
Developers--step up your game please, and hire http://www.paullaurendeau.com/ to design urban 6-8s condo projects in Toronto, not just Mtl--density isn't just found in highrises.
Click to expand...

Developers will step up their game, once the city planning staff gets rid of their fear of shadows. All of these point towers are being built because zoning bylaws restrict how much shadow falls on a particular area for a given length of time. I would love a continuous street wall of 6-8s buildings with the occasional 30s+ tower, where appropriate, along our major roads.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top