Benito
Senior Member
Just now.
Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
travis3000
Active Member
From the sounds of that article by Jack Landau , The One doesn't seem to have a hope in hell at increasing its height. Councillor Layton is dead against it.
khaldoon
Active Member
I admit I am completely ignorant of how municipal governments work but I hope decisions are not made based solely on one councillor’s opinion.
Northern Light
Superstar
Planning already has established rules around shadowing which is how the development arrived at its current height.
The Councillor would carry weight, even if that were not the case; in that most councillors, most of the time, defer to each other in respect of developments specific to that Councillor's ward.
This is so that the same favour is returned to them.
Here, however, we have the Councillor and Planning both uninterested in more height.
I think it's a fair read that this probably isn't happening, and certainly not without an appeal to the OLT.
Otis_YVR
Active Member
: concrete_and_light
Active Member
If Layton's yelling about this ends up squeezing out some sort of community benefit in exchange for the height that's good, but it seems like the result will be the city gets nothing and the tower doesn't get higher and Jesse Ketchup (accidental typo but leaving it lol) stays blessedly sun-soaked. Aside from that it doesn't seem like it achieves much besides empty placating of both NIMBY anti-height culture while also looking like he's trying to stand up for affordable housing. His outrage would be a lot more credible if he also raged against all the homeowners and city policy that keep apartments and affordable housing from being built in the places in his ward that affordable housing could conceivably actually be built, instead of just empty raging against the idea that there's no affordable housing in a luxury tower at the corner of Yonge & Bloor and height is bad because height bad. It just seems performative.
I wish the councillor would focus on building social housing and enabling apartment buildings to be built on residential streets in his neighbourhood and using his political capital to push back against the destructive and selfish political power of his homeowner neighbours instead instead of tilting at windmills in order to look like a champion of affordability without actually getting anything done.
With all that said I'm pretty surprised that the developer also didn't come prepared to offer something substantial to the city. Even if it wasn't going to be affordable housing, couldn't they have done something else? Buy some random small property in the area and dedicate it to parkland or a community centre or something. Anything really would have helped them look more credible as well instead of just seeming like they feel entitled to the height increase without providing community benefit. (I'm not counting their proposed Yonge & Bloor festival transformation proposal as something substantial at all since I don't even understand what it is they're actually proposing. It just seems like a bunch of festival tents set up on a closed street, which is something we could do today if we wanted to.) Layton is right to call them on not providing any benefit for the community.
I wish the councillor would focus on building social housing and enabling apartment buildings to be built on residential streets in his neighbourhood and using his political capital to push back against the destructive and selfish political power of his homeowner neighbours instead instead of tilting at windmills in order to look like a champion of affordability without actually getting anything done.
With all that said I'm pretty surprised that the developer also didn't come prepared to offer something substantial to the city. Even if it wasn't going to be affordable housing, couldn't they have done something else? Buy some random small property in the area and dedicate it to parkland or a community centre or something. Anything really would have helped them look more credible as well instead of just seeming like they feel entitled to the height increase without providing community benefit. (I'm not counting their proposed Yonge & Bloor festival transformation proposal as something substantial at all since I don't even understand what it is they're actually proposing. It just seems like a bunch of festival tents set up on a closed street, which is something we could do today if we wanted to.) Layton is right to call them on not providing any benefit for the community.
Last edited:
travis3000
Active Member
Too bad they couldn't just appeal to the OMB like the good old days and over ride the stupid councillors who always say no to height.
Northern Light
Superstar
Shadowing isn't just aesthetics on its own, or personal comfort (though you might want to try recess in the school yard in January with no sun before dismissing its value in that respect).
Sun is necessary to sustain trees, and any other plants. No plant functions with zero sun (though some understory species can manage with surprisingly little)
Jesse Ketchum is not sun soaked now. Previous developments have already incrementally reduced the amount of sunshine there. This is just one more blow on top of that would eliminate a good chunk of what remains.
If you want kids to get some sun in winter, and you want some surviving trees, you can't have all shadow, all-the-time in that yard.
The rules really aren't arbitrary. (at least in this case)
The only way this was ever going to be favourably treated by the City is with Layton's blessing; and even then it would be a hard sell due to the shadowing issue. The City would be extremely concerned about the precedent involved.
That said, if Sam really wanted to do this, he knows damn well how these things work. You go the Councillor quietly, before staff, broach the idea and clearly ask ' is there anything I could do for the community that would make this seem reasonable to you?"; he would also need to deal directly with the TDSB and the parent council at J.K. in the same fashion.
The truth is, the sums were talking about that 'might' tempt negotiation would be a big chunk of Sam's profit (on the additional floors); I don't see a penny under 10M budging anyone. Which is a lot to turn over, in advance (which is what the City would want before issuing a permit). Even that might not be enough.
To be clear, 10M doesn't buy you much of anything in the area by way of land; at least not any you could do anything desirable with; what it might do is allow renewal/restoration of JK; or a new childcare centre or something.
At any rate, in not going through things the way a sensible developer would, I'm assuming Sam fully expected this to go the OLT from the get-go. I'm not convinced he wins there; but in the scheme of things, it's probably not a huge cost to go through the motions, and at the rate the project is going, he can wait the 2 years for a decision...... LOL
Last edited:
dodgeram
Active Member
It was also said in the meeting that some of the Section 37 Benefits (I think $20 million) were going to be used to pay for the PATH connection. Not sure how that benefits anyone except those living in The One, but anyways. Now it appears the connection isn’t going to happen. Maybe it can instead be used for something else to appease people.
On another note I think the discussion regarding shadowing on Jesse Ketchum park is ridiculous. The incremental shadowing that would occur is minimal at best. They’ve already approved it with the shadowing and this is barely different.
On another note I think the discussion regarding shadowing on Jesse Ketchum park is ridiculous. The incremental shadowing that would occur is minimal at best. They’ve already approved it with the shadowing and this is barely different.
concrete_and_light
Active Member
Fair enough @Northern Light re: sunlight. I do not myself know exactly how much we're talking about here in terms of the added impact on Jesse Ketchum with this height increase or if the increased amount will make a meaningful impact on the trees. I also personally find being out in the blazing inescapable sun to be a much greater issue in this city so that's my personal bias, but maybe Jesse Ketchum really is already quite shaded — I don't know and would be interested to see how much added shadow this adds. I'll have a look for updated shadow study in the docs to see if I can find out.
To be clear, I think the developer is being a bad actor here, I just also find it tiresome and telling that this is what gets Layton yelling about affordability and am frustrated by his empty gesturing at anti-height politics to criticize it instead of using his political voice to get meaningful change in areas where he could have an impact. Of course it isn't zero sum, but I haven't heard him come close to being this fervent speaking to homeowners about how they need to be realistic about growth and not fighting every new development and humane about accepting new neighbours and more density in order to accommodate them or speak in support of allowing apartment buildings on million+ $$$ homeowner residential streets in his ward or anything like that. Maybe he has and I've missed it.
To be clear, I think the developer is being a bad actor here, I just also find it tiresome and telling that this is what gets Layton yelling about affordability and am frustrated by his empty gesturing at anti-height politics to criticize it instead of using his political voice to get meaningful change in areas where he could have an impact. Of course it isn't zero sum, but I haven't heard him come close to being this fervent speaking to homeowners about how they need to be realistic about growth and not fighting every new development and humane about accepting new neighbours and more density in order to accommodate them or speak in support of allowing apartment buildings on million+ $$$ homeowner residential streets in his ward or anything like that. Maybe he has and I've missed it.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
A bias I share, but my preferred solution starts with an awful lot more trees!
zang
Senior Member
Of all the people on council to criticize for not doing anything in regards to affordable housing, it shouldn’t be Layton. Both he and previous-objection-to-the-project Kristyn Wong-Tam have been huge proponents for—and consistently voted for—affordable housing, including fighting in favour of the recent rooming house vote that was unceremoniously deferred by Tory and his usual suspects.
concrete_and_light
Active Member
That is great work Layton did and I'm generally a supporter of him, but like almost everyone on council, the yellowbelt and the homeowner dominance of housing policy and planning policy writ large is a third rail that I feel is often masked by going hard against high-density housing projects and developers even though that fight (while sometimes appropriate) will never solve the larger issue. The rooming house policy is direly needed though and I'm glad those two and others are fighting for it (Perks as well, even though I largely think his approach to housing policy is overly idealistic and absolutist and the way he engages with those who disagree with him not helpful). Credit where credit is due to them all though for fighting that unpopular but necessary fight and we'd be far better with a council full of councillors like them. None of them are my enemies. But I am frustrated at times by them as well.
Mike Layton's a good politician and person. I criticize because I expect a lot of him, and despair at our inability to tackle the significance of this issue and the political shift that will need to happen in order to do so. But aspects of my post were not well considered and I take back the extent of my criticism of him.
I think we are probably veering off into general affordable housing/Toronto politics discussion again though and it is my fault and I regret many aspects of how I expressed things and reacted. Everyone makes good points. Consider my positions reconsidered!
gamarad
New Member
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
One would think that this would be the reasonable starting point at which these parties involved would be approach this...instead of dialing up the rhetoric to the nines for the political troll points. And pointlessly so.