Toronto Lakeside Long Term Care Centre Expansion | 22.8m | 6s | University Health Network | Montgomery Sisam

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
22,057
Reaction score
59,363
Location
Davenport

160 DUNN AVE
Ward 04 - Tor & E.York District


Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to to permit 6-storey addition to the existing Lakeside Longterm care facility at 150 Dunn Avenue, with approximately 11,736 square metres of gross floor area and 192 new long-term care beds. These new beds will be jointly operated alongside the existing 128 beds at Lakeside LTC, bringing the total number of long-term care beds on-site to 320.

Rough sketch from the planning docs:

177647
 
I used to live literally across the street from this institution.

To be clear, the application does not affect the Sunflower House Child Care Center at all. It is proposed to be build directly to the south of the existing four-story building that is set back from Dunn Avenue. There is nothing but a parking lot gate there now.

Seems like a good use of space to me, though I would have lamented the loss of afternoon light for my garden
 
Toronto-based hospital network commits land to building affordable housing

KELLY GRANT HEALTH REPORTER
PUBLISHED SEPTEMBER 16, 2019

The largest academic hospital in Canada is planning to offer a radical new treatment for its neediest patients: a place to live.

The University Health Network (UHN) in downtown Toronto has committed a plot of land worth nearly $10-million to a unique affordable-housing project designed to ease overcrowding at the network’s two acute-care hospitals.

 
150 Dunn Ave

The UHN long-term care facility on Dunn Ave has put forward an application to construct a 6-storey expansion to their institution to accommodate 200 new long-term care beds. A pre-application meeting was held in May 2019. The applicant continues to work with City Planning staff to finalize an acceptable submission.

 
I hope they do remember to have outdoor space, even people in care homes need to be outside some times.
 
Final report to the October 15th, meeting of TEYCC.

Approval recommended.


***

Of significant note, the application now covers all of UHN's land holdings in the area.

This is being done to secure the existing rental housing...........

But also because UHN and the City are about to enter a master plan/visioning exercise for the balance of the properties.

A further report will go to the next Planning and Housing Committee on this subject.

1601559831771.png


Aerial view of the expanded site; not that the shot does include some non-UHN properties fronting Dunn:

1601560064396.png


So this entire block on Close is part of the UHN land holdings. Basically everything from their driveway to Springhurst.

1601560159708.png


They also have 2 additional lots on Springhurst and some frontage on Dunn.
 
They should partner with someone to complete the land assembly with the lots on Close Ave and Dunn Ave and deliver purpose-built rental.

That being said, I can't imagine ANY rental provider in the city wanting to add more of Parkdale to their portfolio. That area is a no-fly zone now because of all the recent activists and calls for "withholding rent".
 
They should partner with someone to complete the land assembly with the lots on Close Ave and Dunn Ave and deliver purpose-built rental.

That being said, I can't imagine ANY rental provider in the city wanting to add more of Parkdale to their portfolio. That area is a no-fly zone now because of all the recent activists and calls for "withholding rent".

In fairness, those situations have mostly arisen with landlords taking buildings that were predominately affordable, and trying to drastically raise rents and find any excuse to remove longer-term tenants who had sub-market rent deals.

That may not universally be the case, but I know that applies in 2 buildings in particular.

In both cases the landlords did not make any real effort to build rapport with or treat existing tenants fairly.

Truthfully, I don't understand why landlords don't offer generous buy-outs in such circumstances. The R.O.I is typically there. Most tenants would be worse off in the longer term; but would accept a windfall of cash.

If you have a tenant with a $1,000 below market rent............So let's say $1,300 when market would be $2,300 if the unit were updated.

You offer the tenant 1 years rent in cash to exit, so $12,000; you renovate the unit for $24,000 (new floor, paint, kitchen and bath), you're out 36k. You'll earn ever dollar of that back in 3 years on a new lease. That's an excellent ROI.

Hell you could pay the tenants 24k to get out and still make out like a bandit.

But instead we tend to see questionable eviction moves; tenant harassment, inadequate heat, or maximized above-guideline rent increases.

That's not just mean, its a very inefficient way to raise your ROI.

Lots of tribunal activity, legal and administrative burden, and maybe even police involvement if tenant harassment or the like is at issue.

****

A new purpose-built rental would come in with a rent that would be high-end of market if it was a private portfolio addition. I don't imagine it would attract those types of issues in the near to medium term.

The question is whether that would be the best use of a public land holding; or whether a co-op/non-profit would be a better partner, with government financing the outstanding land assembly.
 
They should partner with someone to complete the land assembly with the lots on Close Ave and Dunn Ave and deliver purpose-built rental.

That being said, I can't imagine ANY rental provider in the city wanting to add more of Parkdale to their portfolio. That area is a no-fly zone now because of all the recent activists and calls for "withholding rent".

New report to Planning and Housing Ctte on October 20th.

Includes several recommendations:

The existing house-form properties would be leased to the City as affordable housing, pending future redevelopment.

Short term possibility of new modular affordable housing on the site of the current parking lot.

This one I will just copy/paste as it speaks directly to Wisla's post above:

3. City Council direct the Executive Director, Housing Secretariat and the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, in consultation with CreateTO and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to evaluate additional privately owned lands adjacent to or in proximity to the lands owned by University Health Network within the block for opportunities to create a more efficient redevelopment block, and report back to Council on potential to incorporate these additional properties as part of a larger assembly and redevelopment plan.

Full report here:


Attached to the report:

1602596954120.png
 
There definitely are some quality Victorians in the grouping that have remained in reasonable shape. Other ideas could include gentle midrising behind/in between the houses, something that is being conceptualized for 685 Queen East:


View attachment 276780
When possible, please convert pngs to jpg before posting: pngs can take forever to download for anyone with a slower connection. Thanks!

42
 

Back
Top