West Queen West / A&D District

[digitalcabana]

Active 18 publishes proposed revision of OMB decision

Active 18 publishes proposed revision of OMB decision
by Steven Wood - 2007-07-17
Active 18

http://active18.org/charrette/active-18-publishes-proposed-revision-of-omb-decision/image/image_view_fullscreen

This is a little rendering created by Active18 to show how, even with the lemon of an OMB decision - we might still be able to make lemonade.

This drawing shows:

The proper extension of Northcote (as envisioned in the existing Secondary Plan): We feel this could be achieved by forcing Baywood to put the "open-to-the-sky" pathway on their new property, which is immediately east of 1171. (Technically it can't go on the 1171 - because that was lost at the OMB, but if the new By-law forced Baywood to put an opening of that size on the western (not the eastern) end of their new site, they might see their way to moving it further west onto the 1171 site and aligning it with the rest of the Northcote "extension".

150 Sudbury becomes larger - allowing a fabulous park at the south-west corner of their site: All the density from the two towers that the developer got can go into one building. The building could become a lot longer because the 25% of park area would be moved west and put in the middle of the "U" shape of the 48 Abell site. This park would have fabulous sun because it is open to the south and the towers would be much better spaced, giving the condo-buyers much nicer views and light conditions. (The developers should want to do that!?).

Smaller park on Lisgar: because the City will have achieved a spectacular park on the 150 Sudbury site - there will only be the need for a much smaller park on Lisgar (which will save the City precious money). As shown in the drawing the park starts as a sliver at Queen, widens a bit behind the Post Office. At the southern end there will be a green path between 150 Sudbury and 48 Abell that will lead into the big park on the 150 Sudbury
site.

Retention of north and east wings of 48 Abell: with one larger tower on the west side of site. (OK - we can still dream.)

Queen Street buildings are 4 and 5 stories (as per current zoning by-law) and respect the fine grain nature of Queen Street: This in keeping with the nature of Queen West for miles. Allow the developers to put the density further back in the triangle - toward the railroad track. At this point Baywood is the only site. Why is the planning department intent on putting 8-storey buildings on this strip against the wishes of the community. Why not shove this density further back in the triangle as we have always asked. This will help to retain the historic scale of the street and reduces the threat of owners on the north side of Queen arguing that they should be able to do the same (taking down their 2 and 3 storey historic buildings). The city has endorsed this kind of massing on Queen Street between Simcoe and Bathurst, in an attempt to retain the historic nature of that part of Queen - what's wrong with our part of Queen?

 

[unimaginative2]

I really like that plan, and the rendering looks great. Which one is Alsop designing again?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

unimaginative:

None - his building is on the other side of the tracks.

AoD

 

[unimaginative2]

It worries me slightly that he's been relegated to some amorphous "second phase." It's linked to one of these buildings, right?

 

[ShonTron]

From this morning's Star:

City can appeal Queen project

Jul 27, 2007 04:30 AM
Donovan Vincent
City hall bureau

Excerpt:

The City of Toronto has won the right to appeal an Ontario Municipal Board ruling on one of three proposed developments in the Queen West Triangle.

The court decision, released yesterday, deals with a project that includes two condo buildings ranging from six to 13 storeys at 150 Sudbury St., to be built by Landmark Developments Inc. on the 2.4-hectare Triangle near Queen St. W. and Dovercourt Rd.

Toronto has already settled on a compromise deal with developers of two other condo projects on the site. The OMB okayed all three projects.

 

[marcus_a_j]

Queen W. condo plan a fine mess

Aug 02, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume

Link to Article

It's no secret lawyers are the real planners of Toronto, and as recent events show, development decisions are now being made in court.

Unlike most cities in Canada and around the world, the planning process in Toronto has been held hostage by a provincial agency, the Ontario Municipal Board, which has final say on civic planning.

The OMB is a quasi-judicial body, which means legal counsel, witnesses, testimony, and in the end, a winner and loser.

Is it any wonder then that growth has been so badly handled in this city? To make matters worse, Toronto's planning department cannot keep up with demand; understaffed, underfunded and undermined by archaic legislation – the OMB dates back to 1897 – it is no longer up to the task.

The most recent example of the mess is the travesty of West Queen West, which has been pretty well been handed over to developers to do with what they want regardless of city policies and residents' concerns.

The story involves a trio of developers, an organized and engaged neighbourhood and civic bureaucracy that can't get its act together. It's a familiar tale; a district is colonized by creative types who bring it to life, then developers set about building condos that will kill the very appeal that made them possible in the first place.

What's different here is that the neighbourhood didn't lapse into the usual NIMBY negativity. Instead, it hired its own lawyers and planners and came up with a proposal to accommodate growth, which all agreed was desirable.

Because the city was so slow responding to developers' applications, however, OMB appeals were launched and heard. As usual, the tribunal sided with the builders but did insist that they return this fall with improved schemes.

In the meantime, feeling heat from outraged citizens, Toronto politicians announced they would seek approval from Ontario Divisional Court to appeal the OMB decision.

But the day before the case was heard, the city chickened out and settled with two of the three developers. Then the judge did the unexpected and agreed with the city argument, but by then it only applied to the third developer's plan.

And so earlier this week, eviction notices were sent to tenants at 48 Abell St., an old three-storey warehouse occupied by artists, designers and the like. The building, whose fate has been the focus of much anger, will be demolished to make way for an undistinguished complex ill-suited to the area.

"It's a missed opportunity," says John Gladki, a former city planner now in private practice. "We're talking about a space the size of three city blocks. There's enough land to accommodate all the demands of the residents and the city as well as the needs of the developers."

Gladki, who worked for West Queen West organization, Active 18, is dead on. Indeed, in a nutshell, that is the point. In a smarter, less adversarial system, changes would have been made, compromises accepted and improvements introduced. The players would have walked away with much if not all they wanted. By contrast, in our lawyer-dominated approach, there are always losers. And, of course, the big loser is the city itself.

The process could have been as simple as getting everyone involved to sit down together and work out something acceptable to all. In fact, Mayor David Miller did call the developers and residents to a meeting, but in the end was undone by his bureaucracy.

"Who knew the city would back out at the last minute?" asks activist Margie Zeidler. "The planning department shafted us."

 

[mysteryman]

Queen and Dufferin Development

This could probably be in it's own thread but it is so close to the subject properties...
There are notices on the lands at the southwest corner of Queen and Dufferin and northwest corner of Queen and Gladstone for the rezoning to allow for increased densities (12 storeys at Q&D, 8 at Q&G). Both would be more than the city would allow but both would be welcome improvents to the sites (one storey 'plaza' buildings on each.)
Anyone have more info?

 

[unimaginative2]

The Dominion


August 8, 2007


Outperforming Gentrification
A profile of Jessica Rose

by Michelle Tarnopolsky


On November 11, 2006, artist and curator Jessica Rose orchestrated A Funeral for a Building, a performance piece/memorial service to mark the end of an era for her Queen West arts community. Rose invited residents and community members to express their grief over plans to tear down her home at 48 Abell Street in order to make way for two condominium towers. For the last quarter-century, the 80,000-square-foot, industrial, loft-style building has provided 80 live/work studios for artists in the heart of what was recently renamed Toronto’s “Art and Design District.â€

Less than two months before the funeral, on September 28, Toronto city council voted against designating the 120-year-old former lamp factory as a heritage building, which would have protected it from demolition. The timing was as harsh as the news; it came on the eve of Nuit Blanche, the inaugural all-night, Paris-inspired, city-wide contemporary art fest that artists from the Queen West gallery district had been helping the city plan for months.

Rose, a key organizer for the overwhelmingly successful Nuit Blanche, is diplomatic about what many in the arts community consider outright betrayal on the part of the city: “I’m in a complicated position,†she says. “But what’s the alternative? Not getting involved and not being able to impact things and saying, ‘Oh, you’re an agent of gentrification--I hate you’? That’s a really dumb position.†Rather than just complaining about it over cocktails, the 28-year-old is using her performance art to get Torontonians thinking and talking about the value of preserving affordable live/work spaces for artists.

Rose moved into 48 Abell with her mother 15 years ago, when it was far from the sightline of circling condo vultures. “There were 14-year-old prostitutes on the corner,†she recalls. “Everyone thought [my mom] was crazy for having a kid in this neighbourhood.†Her long bangs mostly obscure her eyes and she has a serious, almost brooding appearance that belies her moxie. “This was such an amazing building, even then,†she says. “John Scott [a major Canadian painter] lived here…all the senior faculty at OCAD [Ontario College of Art and Design]—they all lived here.â€

Spurred on by her community, Rose got her first film grant at 19 and left to study filmmaking at Emily Carr shortly thereafter. By the time she came back and moved into her own loft space at 48 Abell in 2001, the neighbourhood was well on its way to becoming the contemporary art mecca it is today. New galleries had sprouted up everywhere. “To come back in to this amazing, active community—it was sort of like my introduction to the world,†says Rose. After assisting sculptor John Jackson in his studio for a year and completing courses at OCAD and the University of Toronto, she secured a job as the associate art director of the Drake Hotel and was curating shows within six months.

While there’s no question that the area around the Drake has gotten a lot trendier since the boutique hotel opened on Queen West in February 2004, Rose thinks that blaming it for the gentrification of the area is a simplistic way to look at community growth. “I really believe that if you have a good thing, you beam that out to the world. You don’t have something that’s really great and only show 10 people just so you don’t lose it,†she says. Yet a disheartening pattern emerges whenever artists move into low-rent neighbourhoods: they act as catalysts for urban renewal by beautifying live/work spaces and producing amenities (as Richard Florida, author of Rise of the Creative Class, would say), which in turn ups the hip-quotient of the area, thereby increasing rent and forcing artists out. And they are not alone: all low-income community members who have made the neighbourhood a home suffer the same consequences.

Rose, however, refuses to accept this as inevitable. “There are other cities where planners or councils will hire an artist to be on their board,†she says. “What needs to happen [in Toronto] is more artists working closer with the city and guiding the people who have the ability to invest.â€

While Rose has devoted a lot of time to working with Active 18, the community group formed to fight irresponsible development in the Ward 18 gallery district, she does not identify herself as an activist. When it comes to raising awareness about the importance of preserving a space like 48 Abell, she says she’s “a lot more comfortable with the artist strategy.†Sparked by her research on public art for Nuit Blanche, Rose joined forces with choreographer Jenn Goodwin in May 2006 to launch the “Movement Movement†in which they “run with art†through public spaces, like galleries and city squares, along with whoever wants to join them. The purpose is less about creating a spectacle, Rose says, and “more about bringing together the janitor who works at York University with the executive who’s obsessed with running, with kids from some high school in Scarborough and... creating a circumstance for them to make relationships with each other and with the space.†The concept behind the project--bringing attention to shared public space by activating it in a unique way--outlives the temporary act. Is it conceptual art? Performance art? Interventionist art?
Social art? Rose uses all of these terms to describe it.

On May 12, 2007, Rose and Goodwin accomplished their most ambitious project to date: running through the Royal Ontario Museum with some 250 people. It was the first stop in a cross-country tour of major art institutions that will continue into 2008. At Nuit Blanche numero deux on September 30, 2007, Rose will participate by bringing the Movement back to the seat of its inception. In “an extension of A Funeral for a Building,†she and fellow artist residents will present another large-scale public project at 48 Abell.

Efforts to appeal the city’s decision, and even the backing of Toronto’s mayor, David Miller, have only helped to delay, not stop, the condo plans. In the meantime, “there’s a bunch of work that’s going on behind the scenes to save as much as possible,†says Rose.

“What we learned from Nuit Blanche is that people really do give a shit and the thought of a live/work space that houses 80 units for artists and dancers and writers getting torn down is ridiculous in any city,†she says. “It’s not just an artist issue; it’s a much greater issue about Toronto. There are so many people ho love this city so much who are just saying, 'No, this should not be happening.'â€


http://www.dominionpaper.ca/articles/1295

 

[maestro]

Rose invited residents and community members to express their grief over plans to tear down her home at 48 Abell Street in order to make way for two condominium towers.

not that I'm in support of the bland proposal however one tower is condo while the other is rental with RGI units

 

[urbandreamer]

John Scott taught me and I never knew he lived there. but Ms. Rose is wrong: the Drake sounded the death knell for the area. Actually, it was the Candy Factory lofts 10 years ago. Every area I've lived in was pioneered by artists--and every neighbourhood has since had a condo/loft explosion resulting in the artists (except the rich kids) moving out--from Mtl to Toronto to Vancouver to NYC, it's happened. Artists are like pioneers--they chop down the trees, get the seed sown and build the community--but then the shopkeepers, the business folk, the bourgeois move in and take over--A Natural Occurance.

Jessica Rose, please move either to Hamilton or to some of those 2000 empty storefronts lining Dundas St W (from Bathurst to Royal York.) Besides, just like a rose, your bloom is over for the season--'til next spring!

 

[mysteryman]

This type of 'news story' is getting pretty tiring. It's sad that artists get displaced etc. but it has happened hundreds of times before and will continue to happen. And I've already read ms. Rose's story before in some other local rag. It just sounds like an artist looking for publicity by jumping on the NIMBY bandwagon.

 

[unimaginative2]

Will the hipsters and the cottagers bring law to the OMB? Not likely

JOHN BARBER

August 11, 2007

The last perceptive Martian to visit the proceedings of the Ontario Municipal Board posted an interesting report on the experience once she returned home to the real world. Madam Justice Joan Lax discovered a lawless land, nestled within the bosom of the state yet impervious to statute, policy or natural justice, and it rather shocked her.

It would be wrong to say the judge was puzzled by her encounter with such jurisprudence, which occurred when the city attempted to appeal one especially arbitrary OMB diktat - the one that allowed unfettered gentrification of the industrial lands near Queen and Dufferin. But at bottom she reacted like any layperson would in the same position, like many have before her. What is it that makes this tribunal, she and others have wondered, exempt from the very laws and regulations it is supposed to enforce?

How can it just ignore the provincial Planning Act and all the policy statements that accompany the act, as well as laboriously detailed municipal plans and zoning regulations, when it judges planning disputes? Shouldn't judges give reasons for their decisions? What's the point of having all that law and policy if it counts for nothing?

Apart from a passing reference to the "existing statutory and policy framework," the board gave no consideration to prevailing rules and laws in making its Queen West Triangle decision, according to Judge Lax. She wrote that its reasons were "devoid" of any discussion of the actual laws governing the dispute. Confounding conventional wisdom that the city's court challenge was the height of effrontery, she readily endorsed it.

So now a real court will judge the actual merits of this increasingly notorious case. Although the city settled with two developers prior to the court decision, angering local activists, the future of three-quarters of the precinct remains uncertain. A further court victory would not only preserve the city's vision of a mixed-use neighbourhood, rather than a purely residential enclave, it would re-assert the legitimacy of an impressive-looking but easily ignorable planning regime.

But the half-victory is enough today to help bring back the OMB as a potentially volatile issue. What the Queen West Triangle case proves beyond doubt is that the reforms the Liberals promised in the last election just didn't take.

We know that because the Liberal reforms, though timid, addressed the same fundamental problem identified by Judge Lax and many previous critics: the tribunal's refusal to acknowledge any authority but its own. Nothing has changed, for reasons your local MPP will be glad to explain as soon as the briefing note goes out.

In the meantime, the various (though generally elite) constituencies that care about such things are agitated as never before. The downtown hipsters are marching from the south and the millionaire cottagers from the north, both aiming for Queen's Park, while militias raised in local zoning battles across the province rush to arms. That great dream of provincial reform, the end of our unique embarrassment, the OMB, appears within grasp.

At least it does to those who let their valid impressions of the OMB influence their view of provincial politics. Those who have seen how useful the thing has been to successive governments ruled by three different parties remain a little blind to the apparition.

Imagine what trouble the Liberals would be in today if they didn't have the OMB insulating them from the current millionaires' revolt on Lake Simcoe, which is growing nicely into a regional environmental alarm. In time-honoured democratic fashion, Progressive Conservative leader John Tory laid out a clear plan to protect Lake Simcoe from excessive development. But the government is solemnly bound to let the OMB decide the matter, to let "justice" take its course - until such time as it is safely re-elected.

Just as the steady eutrophication of Lake Simcoe kills animal life by depriving it of oxygen, the OMB smothers dissent.

Tory premier Mike Harris hid for years behind an extended OMB hearing until an impatient electorate finally forced him to pass straightforward legislation protecting the Oak Ridges Moraine. His government actually joined the appeal at the board, arguing for the protection it refused to legislate - a farcical attempt to legitimize its dogsbody tribunal.

So watch for Liberal irregulars to join the influential appellants now arguing about Indian pottery shards on Lake Simcoe and floor-area ratios on Queen Street. It would be a good project for recently deposed citizenship minister Mike Colle, a stalwart anti-OMB activist when he sat in opposition to the Tories.

At the same time, he can explain why nothing has changed in the four years since he and his party promised fundamental reform of the OMB.

jbarber@globeandmail.com

 

[Mike in TO]

^ The media ignores the fact that legislative reforms to the OMB came into effect on January 1st this year after a couple of years of extensive consultation with a wide range of stakeholders.

The Queen West appeal was granted under the old rules. The new rules just came into effect and the first OMB cases to appear before the OMB under the new rules likely won't occur until September.

It is unfortunate that a case such as this has become a lightning rod for reform - when reforms have just taken place only a couple of months ago, but most people writing about the OMB in the media or those who critisize, yet don't understand it haven't taken the time to read anything into the Queen West Case to learn that the old rules applied as the application and appeals process began prior to January 1, 2007.

 

[alklay]

Very good and relevant point.

(You mean the Star has its facts wrong??!!)

 

[unimaginative2]

John Barber is the Globe. That doesn't mean he doesn't get his facts wrong all the time. I once wrote him, pointing out a blatantly wrong claim he was making and which was critical to the point of his column. I tried to get him to say where he got the figures to back up his claim (that Torontonians recycle more than anybody else -- something which readily-available waste diversion statistics will show is blatantly untrue) and he refused. He obviously just "assumes" these things are facts and doesn't bother to do any research whatsoever. His columns regularly denouncing everybody from outside Toronto as "bumpkins" and hicks make him the paragon of the Ugly Torontonian, the Ontario equivalent of the Ugly American.