Toronto Richview Square | 103.75m | 31s | Trinity Group | B+H

HousingNowTO said:
(2018) "This report recommends City funding and incentives through the Open Door Affordable Housing Program for 72 new affordable rental homes at 4620 Eglinton Avenue West and 250 Wincott Drive (Richview Square Redevelopment)."


So, as expected/usual - with this FINAL report we lost 22 units (30%) of the Affordable-Rental units on this site next to BILLIONS in new underground transit...just to keep the neighbours (and local-councillor) happy.

Our volunteers will submit a Letter and depute to the Community Council on this item on April 19th.


View attachment 310785
Click to expand...

Between the transit, and no immediate residential neighbours, this site certainly calls for more density; and a much different layout too!

Useless open space fronting Eglinton makes no sense. I'm a parks guy; but the space as conceived just isn't that useful.

What should really happen:

Development here should be coordinated with the plaza to the north. If not the same owner; work it out.

The retail in the plaza should be shifted underneath new towers on Eglinton.

The plaza should then be rebuilt, with intensified residential.

****

More egregious than this proposal is what we got just to the west:

1617726187185.png


Fronting an LRT route; seriously?

Really, if we want to support more parks in the area, lets just tear these back down; better use of space.

FFS that makes me mad.

Why worry about the 'yellow belt' when you get this as 'greenfield' intensification on an LRT route................SMH.
 

Attachments

  • 1617726187469.png
    1617726187469.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 173
Let's look at an aerial of this area:

1617727091807.png


I placed red 'x's through recent low-density development. These are grossly inappropriate to their location. It's so incredibly wasteful to imagine tearing them down again already; but it's an even worse waste to leave them standing.

The yellow encircles areas that are not recent, but should be redeveloped with mid to high density. Two plazas and some yellowbelt SFH.

In the case of the latter, draw a new east-west street across that block to divide the remaining SFH from the higher density area along Eglinton.

Draw at least one new mid-block N-S road to create more granular access to the area (walkability from the subdivision to shopping/transit and vice versa.)
 
At this point I think we should just re-expropriate the all the lands across the Richview corridor, because every single proposal/development that we've seen to date has just been a laughable waste of precious land.

As i've said before, the Eglinton corridor between Martin Grove and Islington illustrates everything that's wrong with our "urban planning". The city doesnt even know what it wants along this stretch, it's just a jumbled mess.
 
When we are determining the Income-Demographics of local Resident's Associations that are loud and proud about cutting new Affordable-Housing units in their neighbourhood while saying things like "Richmond Gardens is not a City Centre. It's a safe, family friendly neighbourhood. Let's keep it that way." - our volunteers like to Count the number of backyard swimming-pools near the proposed site. :rolleyes:

The Richmond Gardens Ratepayers and Residents Association had a meeting with Councillor Holyday last night (April 6th) - to ask for more delays and reductions on this proposed site : http://www.richmondgardensrra.ca/

1617820362768.png
 
MORE reductions??

You know what, why not let's just build single family detached homes on this site. Eglinton West is already a failed urban planned corridor, let's just make it as bad as it can get.
 
Apparently, Councillor Holyday having another local meeting about this site... tonight at 7:00 PM.

1623783396789.png
 
As a steering committee member of different Toronto residents' association, it's frustrating to see both the language on that group's page (still using the term ratepayers, and associating building typography with safety) and the singular focus on one application. The reality is a lot of RAs start based on an issue, but it's important they evolve beyond that, and quickly. I'm proud to say we have a balanced membership of diverse development opinions in our group, and we don't take 'positions' on particular applications, rather disseminate information so people can share their own thoughts.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top