News   Oct 22, 2021
 21     0 
News   Oct 22, 2021
 200     0 
News   Oct 22, 2021
 408     0 

West Don Lands: Blocks 17+26 (Dominion Foundry Complex, ?, ?s, ?)

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
254
Reaction score
342
Next up: province will remove heritage rules when an MZO is made.

That’s my guess.
This is snark, but it may have a grain of truth. Did the province try for demolition because it didn’t want to risk dealing with Toronto heritage planning?

Put it another way: how long would it take to get heritage preservation services to sign off on a project here? What would it look like? Does anybody know the answers? I follow these things very closely, and I wouldn’t begin to guess.

That seems like a problem.
They will, because their latest proposal is to remove Site Plan Approval for MZOs. This means that the city won't be able to control any aspect of the development. This literally means that city planning will have ZERO control over all these developments and developers will be able to do whatever the hell they want.
Comment if you care, before it's too late: https://ero.ontario.ca/notice/019-2811
 

Ward8

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 6, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
260
This is snark, but it may have a grain of truth. Did the province try for demolition because it didn’t want to risk dealing with Toronto heritage planning?

Absolutely they didn't want to deal with Toronto heritage planning. They obviously didn't want to deal with anyone, or any democratic institution, at all. I really don't think there's a nuance here that makes the governments actions less corrupt and ugly. The problems in heritage planning simply aren't a factor here.
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,682
Reaction score
11,768
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
I don't think that it takes a genius to work out that:
1. The Province wants to sell the site (after 40 years) and wants to do so very fast
2. That they have a buyer and he/she has made the sale conditional on the site being cleared and all the tiresome 'planning stuff' avoided.
3. That they wanted to do all this as quietly as possible
4. That the seller is trying to do some sort of favour for the buyer - once we know which of their favourite developers is involved it will be 'fun' following the money!
 

AlexBozikovic

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
447
Reaction score
1,722
Absolutely they didn't want to deal with Toronto heritage planning. They obviously didn't want to deal with anyone, or any democratic institution, at all. I really don't think there's a nuance here that makes the governments actions less corrupt and ugly. The problems in heritage planning simply aren't a factor here.

We have an opaque and dysfunctional planning system in this city. A hostile force like this government will react to that with thuggery.

Everybody else – including developers of affordable housing – just has to deal with risk, cost, and delay.

The issue isn’t as simple as “small government” hostility to regulation. City heritage planning is its own thing, and it’s remarkably inconsistent these days. There are people even within City Hall who have problems with it.

I’m not surprised this has turned into a partisan battle. Clark invited that and has done nothing to moderate it. But the situation is more complex than it seems.
 
Last edited:

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,682
Reaction score
11,768
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
We have an opaque and dysfunctional planning system in this city. A hostile force like this government will react to that with thuggery.

Everybody else – including developers of affordable housing – just has to deal with risk, cost, and delay.

The issue isn’t as simple as “small government” hostility to regulation. City heritage planning is its own thing, and it’s remarkably inconsistent these days. There are people even within City Hall who have problems with it.

I’m not surprised this has turned into a partisan battle. Clark invited that and has done nothing to moderate it. But the situation is more complex than it seems.
Though I appreciate what you say, part of the problem is that the Act creates delays and the fact that LPAT can re-start applications 'de novo' makes a mockery of local planning. There is certainly a problem at City Planning where the huge number of applications in the last decade have not been accompanied with an increase in staff - it is not a surprise that the City has a hard time keeping to the deadlines set out in the Act so that developers go to LPAT because 'a decision has not been reached'. Planning in Ontario DOES need to be looked at (both the framework and the 'mechanics' ) but the answer is not more MZOs and certainly not allowing the Minister to circumvent Zoning too.
 
Last edited:

Ward8

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 6, 2020
Messages
91
Reaction score
260
But the situation is more complex than it seems.
I agree that, broadly speaking, there are a lot of complexities in Toronto with planning and heritage. I would change a lot, ideally though democratic means and not through random top down peace-meal changes that happen to benefit my friends. This situation happens to be pretty black and white in my mind. The province is in the wrong here. The city is in the wrong elsewhere.
 

adma

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
16,864
Reaction score
1,472
And besides, one might say that technically, it's not as difficult as it looks when it comes to "heritage planning"--that is, the preliminary work was already in place (the kind of stuff that underlay the complex being *plaqued* in the first place).

Unless as per Adam Wilson's "Tom Jones" tweet, they're impelled to drag other examples into the argument simply out of an opportunistic desire to portray HPS in an indiscriminate "list/designate anything" bad light. Sort of like a nudgewink in the direction of equating the Foundry with *that*, and tossing red meat to developers fed up with dealing with "hysterical preservationists"...
 

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
13,682
Reaction score
11,768
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
We won - this round!

Reasons

On the record before me, a respondent or someone acting on a respondent’s behalf has made serious mistakes here. It appears clear that the demolition began in contravention of the Heritage Act, and in breach of Ontario’s obligations under a subdivision agreement between Ontario and the City of Toronto.

It is neither necessary nor desirable for me to undertake a detailed review of the merits of the application at this stage: three of my colleagues will do this on a complete record in less than four weeks. On the record before me: a. The buildings are protected as heritage buildings pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. b. In respect to the buildings at issue in this proceeding, the Heritage Act binds the Crown by its terms. That is, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has decided that Ontario is required to comply with the Heritage Act in these circumstances. c. The Heritage Act requires, among other things, that a Heritage Assessment Report be obtained addressing heritage issues before these buildings can be demolished. d. The Heritage Act also requires “public engagement” before demolishing these buildings. e. Ontario and Toronto have entered into a subdivision agreement that covers the lands on which these buildings are located. In that agreement, Ontario agreed not to demolish heritage buildings in the area covered by the agreement (which includes these buildings) without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to the Heritage Building Manager of the City, a Report that “satisfies” her. f. Infrastructure Ontario did obtain a document that it calls a “Heritage Assessment Report” written by one if its employees. This Report was apparently completed in late 2020. It appears that it was not shown to anyone outside Infrastructure Ontario prior to mobilization of workers and equipment to demolish the heritage buildings. It was not sent to the Heritage Building Manager of the City before demolition commenced, in violation of the subdivision agreement. g. Infrastructure Ontario decided to demolish the heritage buildings without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to Toronto in accordance with the subdivision agreement, did not disclose publicly its intention to demolish the buildings, did not disclose publicly the Heritage Assessment Report written by one of its employees, and did not undertake any “public engagement” respecting demolition of the buildings.

See also: https://www.cp24.com/news/court-say...buildings-at-toronto-s-foundry-site-1.5287684
 

Attachments

  • St. Lawrence Residents Association v. Ontario January 29 2021 Final (2).pdf
    122.4 KB · Views: 74
Last edited:

lomeri

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 27, 2020
Messages
71
Reaction score
296
We won - this round!

Reasons

On the record before me, a respondent or someone acting on a respondent’s behalf has made serious mistakes here. It appears clear that the demolition began in contravention of the Heritage Act, and in breach of Ontario’s obligations under a subdivision agreement between Ontario and the City of Toronto.

It is neither necessary nor desirable for me to undertake a detailed review of the merits of the application at this stage: three of my colleagues will do this on a complete record in less than four weeks. On the record before me: a. The buildings are protected as heritage buildings pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. b. In respect to the buildings at issue in this proceeding, the Heritage Act binds the Crown by its terms. That is, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has decided that Ontario is required to comply with the Heritage Act in these circumstances. c. The Heritage Act requires, among other things, that a Heritage Assessment Report be obtained addressing heritage issues before these buildings can be demolished. d. The Heritage Act also requires “public engagement” before demolishing these buildings. e. Ontario and Toronto have entered into a subdivision agreement that covers the lands on which these buildings are located. In that agreement, Ontario agreed not to demolish heritage buildings in the area covered by the agreement (which includes these buildings) without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to the Heritage Building Manager of the City, a Report that “satisfies” her. f. Infrastructure Ontario did obtain a document that it calls a “Heritage Assessment Report” written by one if its employees. This Report was apparently completed in late 2020. It appears that it was not shown to anyone outside Infrastructure Ontario prior to mobilization of workers and equipment to demolish the heritage buildings. It was not sent to the Heritage Building Manager of the City before demolition commenced, in violation of the subdivision agreement. g. Infrastructure Ontario decided to demolish the heritage buildings without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to Toronto in accordance with the subdivision agreement, did not disclose publicly its intention to demolish the buildings, did not disclose publicly the Heritage Assessment Report written by one of its employees, and did not undertake any “public engagement” respecting demolition of the buildings.

See also: https://www.cp24.com/news/court-say...buildings-at-toronto-s-foundry-site-1.5287684

So glad to hear this. Now maybe the province can actually work with us to save these buildings and get some housing (affordable and market) built on this site. Ford and Clark might have some unhappy friends, but this was the right call!
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,006
Reaction score
29,424
Location
Toronto/EY
We won - this round!

Reasons

On the record before me, a respondent or someone acting on a respondent’s behalf has made serious mistakes here. It appears clear that the demolition began in contravention of the Heritage Act, and in breach of Ontario’s obligations under a subdivision agreement between Ontario and the City of Toronto.

It is neither necessary nor desirable for me to undertake a detailed review of the merits of the application at this stage: three of my colleagues will do this on a complete record in less than four weeks. On the record before me: a. The buildings are protected as heritage buildings pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. b. In respect to the buildings at issue in this proceeding, the Heritage Act binds the Crown by its terms. That is, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has decided that Ontario is required to comply with the Heritage Act in these circumstances. c. The Heritage Act requires, among other things, that a Heritage Assessment Report be obtained addressing heritage issues before these buildings can be demolished. d. The Heritage Act also requires “public engagement” before demolishing these buildings. e. Ontario and Toronto have entered into a subdivision agreement that covers the lands on which these buildings are located. In that agreement, Ontario agreed not to demolish heritage buildings in the area covered by the agreement (which includes these buildings) without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to the Heritage Building Manager of the City, a Report that “satisfies” her. f. Infrastructure Ontario did obtain a document that it calls a “Heritage Assessment Report” written by one if its employees. This Report was apparently completed in late 2020. It appears that it was not shown to anyone outside Infrastructure Ontario prior to mobilization of workers and equipment to demolish the heritage buildings. It was not sent to the Heritage Building Manager of the City before demolition commenced, in violation of the subdivision agreement. g. Infrastructure Ontario decided to demolish the heritage buildings without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to Toronto in accordance with the subdivision agreement, did not disclose publicly its intention to demolish the buildings, did not disclose publicly the Heritage Assessment Report written by one of its employees, and did not undertake any “public engagement” respecting demolition of the buildings.

See also: https://www.cp24.com/news/court-say...buildings-at-toronto-s-foundry-site-1.5287684

One for the good guys (and gals)!

That's as thorough a dressing down of the province as one could hope for.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
20,471
Reaction score
10,090
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
We won - this round!

Reasons

On the record before me, a respondent or someone acting on a respondent’s behalf has made serious mistakes here. It appears clear that the demolition began in contravention of the Heritage Act, and in breach of Ontario’s obligations under a subdivision agreement between Ontario and the City of Toronto.

It is neither necessary nor desirable for me to undertake a detailed review of the merits of the application at this stage: three of my colleagues will do this on a complete record in less than four weeks. On the record before me: a. The buildings are protected as heritage buildings pursuant to the Ontario Heritage Act. b. In respect to the buildings at issue in this proceeding, the Heritage Act binds the Crown by its terms. That is, the Legislature, in its wisdom, has decided that Ontario is required to comply with the Heritage Act in these circumstances. c. The Heritage Act requires, among other things, that a Heritage Assessment Report be obtained addressing heritage issues before these buildings can be demolished. d. The Heritage Act also requires “public engagement” before demolishing these buildings. e. Ontario and Toronto have entered into a subdivision agreement that covers the lands on which these buildings are located. In that agreement, Ontario agreed not to demolish heritage buildings in the area covered by the agreement (which includes these buildings) without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to the Heritage Building Manager of the City, a Report that “satisfies” her. f. Infrastructure Ontario did obtain a document that it calls a “Heritage Assessment Report” written by one if its employees. This Report was apparently completed in late 2020. It appears that it was not shown to anyone outside Infrastructure Ontario prior to mobilization of workers and equipment to demolish the heritage buildings. It was not sent to the Heritage Building Manager of the City before demolition commenced, in violation of the subdivision agreement. g. Infrastructure Ontario decided to demolish the heritage buildings without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to Toronto in accordance with the subdivision agreement, did not disclose publicly its intention to demolish the buildings, did not disclose publicly the Heritage Assessment Report written by one of its employees, and did not undertake any “public engagement” respecting demolition of the buildings.

See also: https://www.cp24.com/news/court-say...buildings-at-toronto-s-foundry-site-1.5287684

For homework (since Doug skipped so many high school classes), Doug Ford has to do a book report on the "subdivision agreement between and the City of Toronto" this weekend. Due Monday, and don't get "help" from your classmates.
 

concrete_and_light

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 27, 2018
Messages
545
Reaction score
1,452
Ford and his government are so used to living in a reality where they just get to do whatever they want, screw everyone else, and just bulldoze through (or threaten to use the notwithstanding clause when they get pushback against their craven and shameful undermining of our democracy) so it's tremendously satisfying to see them finally run into a wall. They've been able to get away with it mostly so far because there aren't many checks on a majority government without scruples or any sense of shame, but finally they've run into a part of civic society that actually values truth and just process.

This part seems like it could be very interesting:
without first providing a Heritage Assessment Report to the Heritage Building Manager of the City, a Report that “satisfies” her.

I wonder how much agency this gives the City's Heritage Building Manager to dispute the province's heritage assessment.
 

Top