Toronto West Don Lands: Blocks 17 & 26 | 141m | 43s | Aspen Ridge | Core Architects

DSC said:
The definition of 'affordable housing' has many variations and even if one takes the Minister at his word (which is hard to do after his recent actions) the 'plans' say that there will be 3 residential buildings: two will be tall, one will be quite short and in THIS building there will be only 30% of 'affordable units' . Though I stand to be corrected, I would say that this is an example of a government trying to sell off land to a 'friend' (on condition it is empty and has already got permissions to build on it, in hand - hence the MZO).
To make it look like an act of selfless public spiritedness, they are throwing in a MINIMAL number of 'affordable units". All the while failing to meet the conditions set several years ago with the City about this site and failing to follow the procedures laid down in the Ontario Heritage Act for changing heritage properties..
Click to expand...
I want the province to amend the MZO to require affordable housing and clarify what definition of affordable housing they're using. I've heard tell of the same plan, will it stick?

innsertnamehere said:
My understanding is that this site is going the same process as the other wdl sites.. which were 30% affordable housing for all units on the site.
Click to expand...
Kristyn Wong-Tam has spoken to city planning and tweeted that two of the buildings on the site will have no affordable housing at all and only the smallest of the three will have any. I don't know enough about navigating city planning to find the plans, unfortunately.
 
To quote the Star last October: ( https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...oronto-on-developments-in-west-don-lands.html )

There were three MZOs issued the same day.
"The orders concern three separate sites all owned by the province and all at different planning stages:
  • 373 Front St. East and 90 Mill St.: A proposed three-building, mixed-use site with buildings between eight and 13 storeys, including 261 affordable housing units currently set for final approval by council this week

  • 125R Mill Street: An application for two residential towers, 32 and 45 storeys, on top of a six-storey office and retail building with a proposed 231 affordable units still at the preliminary stages in the city planning process after being received in June 2020
    and

  • 53-185 Eastern Ave.: A heritage site home to the old Dominion Wheel and Foundries Company with no active development application


    The first two MZPs were for sites where there was already a fully developed plan and where there had been LOTS of consultations. While one may not like the plans approved by the MZO, they were probably identical (or close to) those that Council would have approved. Both were on the agenda of the October 27th meeting.

    The Foundry site MZO is different. it was for a site where there was NO public plan, on which there had been NO consultation and it states, in full. (NOTE: ZERO mention of affordable housing and no MZO amendment made subsequently. The 30% of smallest building only arose during the injunction hearing.


    Here it is, in FULL. (See https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/200595 )

  • Planning Act
    Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire

    ONTARIO REGULATION 595/20

    ZONING ORDER — CITY OF TORONTO

    Consolidation Period: From October 22, 2020 to the e-Laws currency date.

    No amendments.

    This Regulation is made in English only.

    Definitions
    1. (1) In this Order,

    “commercial parking garage” means a building or a portion of a building with one or more parking spaces which are available for public use with or without a fee and which may be occupied by motor vehicles whose users are not occupants or customers of the building where the commercial parking garage is located;

    “established grade” means 78.5 metres Canadian Geodetic Datum;

    “Zoning By-law” means City of Toronto Zoning By-law No. 438-86.

    (2) Subject to subsection (1), the definitions set out in subsection 2 (1) of the Zoning By-law apply.

    Application
    2. (1) This Order applies to,

    (a) lands in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, being Block 26 on Registered Plan 66M-2488, and identified by Property Identification Number 21077-0322 (LT) registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Toronto (No. 80); and

    (b) lands in the City of Toronto, in the Province of Ontario, being Block 17 on Registered Plan 66M-2488, and identified by Property Identification Number 21077-0313 (LT) registered in the Land Registry Office for the Land Titles Division of Toronto (No. 80).

    (2) For the purposes of this Order, the lands described in subsection (1) shall be considered a single lot.

    (3) Despite any future severance, partition or division of the lands described in subsection (1), this Order shall apply as if no severance, partition or division occurred.

    Permitted uses
    3. Every use of land and every erection, location or use of any building or structure is prohibited on the lands described in subsection 2 (1) except for,

    (a) an apartment building;

    (b) a mixed-use building;

    (c) a commercial parking garage;

    (d) a community centre;

    (e) a common outdoor space; and

    (f) a use, building or structure that is accessory to the uses set out in clauses (a) to (e).

    Zoning requirements
    4. The zoning requirements for the lands described in subsection 2 (1) are as follows:

    1. The maximum number of buildings on the lands is three, of which one building shall be an apartment building.

    2. The maximum height above established grade of a building or structure is 141 metres.

    3. Despite paragraph 2,

    i. equipment, structures or parts of a building located on the roof of a building may project by a maximum of 7.5 metres beyond the maximum height of the building set out in that paragraph, and

    ii. chimneys, pipes and vents located on the roof of a building may project 3 metres beyond the maximum height of the building set out in that paragraph.

    4. The minimum setback of any portion of a building or structure above established grade is,

    i. Zero metres from the northern lot line,

    ii. 4.5 metres from the eastern lot line,

    iii. 0.3 metres from the southern lot line, and

    iv. 0.9 metres from the western lot line.

    5. There is no minimum setback of any portion of a building or structure below established grade.

    6. The maximum total residential gross floor area and non-residential gross floor area is 75,038.40 square metres.

    7. The maximum residential gross floor area is 74,810.45 square metres.

    8. The minimum non-residential gross floor area is 500 square metres.

    9. Residential amenity space on the lot shall be provided in accordance with the following:

    i. A minimum of two square metres per dwelling unit for indoor residential amenity space.

    ii. A minimum of two square metres per dwelling unit for outdoor residential amenity space.

    10. Parking spaces for dwellings in mixed-use buildings shall be provided on the lot in accordance with the following:

    i. A minimum of 0.4 and a maximum of one parking spaces per dwelling unit for residents.

    ii. A minimum of 0.1 and a maximum of 0.8 parking spaces per dwelling unit for residential visitors.

    iii. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 100 parking spaces for non-residential uses.

    11. No parking spaces shall be provided for dwelling units located in an apartment building.

    12. Parking spaces for residential visitors to a dwelling unit in a mixed-use building and for the non-residential uses required by paragraph 10 may be shared and provided in a commercial parking garage.

    13. Parking spaces for residents in mixed-use buildings in excess of the minimum parking requirements and less than the maximum parking requirements required by paragraph 10 may be shared on a non-exclusive basis in a commercial parking garage.

    14. A minimum of 11 accessible parking spaces shall be provided.

    15. A minimum of 75 short-term bicycle parking spaces and 900 long-term bicycle parking spaces shall be provided.

    16. Shower and change facilities associated with bicycle parking spaces are not required.

    17. A minimum of two loading spaces that meet the requirements of both type “G” and type “C” shall be provided.

    18. At least 500 square metres of the lot shall consist of privately owned, publicly accessible space to which paragraphs 1 to 17 shall not apply.

    Terms of use
    5. (1) Every use of land and every erection, location and use of buildings or structures shall be in accordance with this Order.

    (2) Nothing in this Order prevents the use of any land, building or structure for any use prohibited by this Order if the land, building or structure is lawfully so used on the day this Order comes into force.

    (3) Nothing in this Order prevents the reconstruction of any building or structure that is damaged or destroyed by causes beyond the control of the owner if the dimensions of the original building or structure are not increased and its original use is not altered.

    (4) Nothing in this Order prevents the strengthening or restoration to a safe condition of any building or structure





    I do not know about you but this MZO is clearly written to accommodate a plan of some sort - the problem is this plan is NOT public and has never been discussed with City planners or the community.
 
Saturday:

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr

The Foundry by Marcanadian, on Flickr
 
Warmth, texture, colour, character...we can't have that. Knock it down and replace it with more clumsy, oppressive, overscaled greychitecture.

Seriously, the contrast between the foundry and the lumps surrounding it couldn't be more stark.
 
Last edited:
These buildings have so much potential to be more than just generic condos. I love those huge windows and always assumed these handsome buildings would be kept for something all Torontonians could enjoy, like a great food hall, a major cultural attraction or at the very least, a market place. I am very upset to see the destruction of these historic buildings, especially for condos. We have lots of under-used land in the area that could be used for condos and low income housing. They do not need to use these distinctive, historic buildings for that. Our politicians fail us every chance they get and I will remember this come election time, Dougie,
 
condovo said:
This demolition is so unnecessary. Politically this is a big miscalculation. And for what? A few bucks' savings? What were they thinking?
Click to expand...
For what? Symbolism. "We're not gonna be taken hostage by hysterical preservationists!" And I'm sure there's some "preservation doesn't pay" libertarian think-tanking informing their thinking. Think of it like stop-the-Spadina in reverse--and as with anti-maskers marching through Kensington, the game of owning the opposition is the point.
 
Northern Light said:
Story out this morning from CBC's Mike Crawley indicating the government authorized entering into an agreement of purchase and sale for these lands back in September.

Ministers confronted on that point don't deny that, though it seems the sale may not have closed. So far, no one in government is prepared to disclose the would-be buyer.

Click to expand...
It's no surprise to learn this is the case, though no less disappointing. The government wouldn't be acting so secretively or be scrambling to back-justify its decisions with faked heritage studies if it hadn't already promised the land (likely in a demolished state) to a buyer. The only person who is benefitting from all this is the future developer, who never even had to bid for the land and will be rid of pesky historical buildings that would have eaten into profit. The whole thing is shameful and atrociously anti-democratic - it's a literal "how-to" for corruption.
 
mcornett said:
It's no surprise to learn this is the case, though no less disappointing. The government wouldn't be acting so secretively or be scrambling to back-justify its decisions with faked heritage studies if it hadn't already promised the land (likely in a demolished state) to a buyer. The only person who is benefitting from all this is the future developer, who never even had to bid for the land and will be rid of pesky historical buildings that would have eaten into profit. The whole thing is shameful and atrociously anti-democratic - it's a literal "how-to" for corruption.
Click to expand...
Yes, this has all the hallmarks of the Ford Government trying to reward some of its friends. There are rumours that the injunction hearing set for later this week will be adjourned as a 'settlement' is being discussed but no matter what happens I think the Auditor General and others need to investigate this transaction. It really is, as you say, 'a how-to for corruption".
 
This bit is the most troubling:

In December 2018, the newly elected PC government shifted Ontario's approach to selling provincial land, announcing a plan to accelerate sales. The government pitched the change as "a more efficient process" for selling surplus government properties. Maximizing the proceeds was no longer named as a prime objective.
Click to expand...

So in other words, this shift creates a lot of room for these properties to be used potentially as "favours" - because unless the buyer intended to transfer the net benefit to the end-users, the differential will be pocketed by the new owner of these properties.

I mean that's how you "respect the taxpayers" I suppose.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Story out this morning from CBC's Mike Crawley indicating the government authorized entering into an agreement of purchase and sale for these lands back in September.

Ministers confronted on that point don't deny that, though it seems the sale may not have closed. So far, no one in government is prepared to disclose the would-be buyer.

Click to expand...
My question would be if this is going to private hands, would the contentious MZO be off the table, halting hopefully the destruction of this building the time being? Or did things just get worse?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top