The Project to construct a 14-storey, mixed-use building with more than 375 residential units, a free-standing day care facility and approximately 1,500 square metres of retail space on the ground level has brought about a disagreement with the developer and the High Park Residents’ Association, and other members of the community.
A recent interview with the local councillor posted on the insidetoronto.com simply out lines the lines drawn between the two groups and well the position of the local councillor which seems to ambiguous..maybe it can be read as doubtful or uncertain that much can be changed now.
Some of her statements are entirely valid yet in terms of fronting the opinion for the residents well…many are not happy.
It should be noted that both the residents, the councillor, and the developer have been hampered by the development start occurring in a City of Toronto election year, and stepping in is an new councillor on a running project is difficult, and a Councillors authority in development matters is not omnipotent. Yet there is strength in a counsillors position.
Daniels’ original design presented to the community at a consultation meeting had the 14-storeys on Bloor Street West, said the local councillor.
Here the councillor is entirely correct,
“Because people commented, we switched the building around. It’s better for High Park, but worse for 22 Oakmount,” said Doucette. “I appreciate where they’re coming from. I agree, we don’t want a solid wall around our park.
Well said, and showing insight into the right to light and view issues that come into play when large buildings are build next to 2 story homes.
Because this is a staggered building, eight floors are on Bloor Street staggered back to 14.”
The meaning of this statement is simply not clear as to what this does to mitigate the current concerns of the residents as they have known this for some time, and it is only part of the solution they want.
Doucette said the building will contain other materials besides glass. The city has a policy concerning glass buildings to protect migrating birds, said the councillor.
In this area, the blog thinks most people would like less glass more brick.
“Most concerns have come to us after the third (consultation) meeting. Between the second and third meeting, I received 13 emails – only three were concerned about height,” said Doucette. “In the eleventh hour, it doesn’t really help.”
This statement is the most puzzling, should not residents be supported right up to the last possible reasonable time-frame, and be allowed to increase their action as projects come closer to approval.
Doucette said that this project was one she “inherited” mid-process.
“I hate to say it, but a lot of this was done before me,” she said.
In this statement she is not entirely correct, the project was introduced in introduced in June of 2010, yes this is six months before her election, but in the middle.
“We’ve reduced the shading on Oakmount Road family homes and addressed the concerns of residents regarding a laneway from Oakmount to Pacific. Daniels has bought some of the TTC land and created a bend in the laneway (preventing cars from racing through).”
Good work on the bend in the laneway to slow cars down, laneway cutting is a big problem in much of the north area of ward 13.
The word “we’ve” common is ambiguous – is it her and residents, her and the developer, or her and city staff. Although lack of in this area can contributed to the insidetoronto reporter.
The planning department and the councillor have encouraged the developer to listen to the residents.
9 Comments
Sure, this is an tad ugly but density is fine here.. It's ontop of a subway line on a major road in the city. Single Detached houses do not belong here. A building this size is justified
Agreed. It is not all that out of line. Mid-rise units near the subway are suitable choice.
This 378 unit condo with way too few parking spaces for the residents, and only 8 above ground parking spaces for the two store locations and 48 child childcare center is going to create traffic and parking havoc in the area.
There was a good crowd at last night's city meeting and not one person from the community who spoke was in favour of this huge project the way it is presently planned and there were a lot of speakers. That was one of a huge list of complaints about the planned building the way the owners have been trying to get it rammed through.
A huge 14 story glass building here is totally inappropriate across from High Park.
City planning thinks it is a great thing that developers are clamoring to surround Toronto's major parks with such large glass buildings. 378 condo apartments – that's double the number of apartments in most single buildings. That's gigantic!
I would urge everybody who cares about Toronto parks to sign the petition at http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/the-intensification-of-high-park/signatures.html
Thank you , High Park Residents' Association.
Wish we could sign the petition.
Of course no one supporting the building was there, these types of meetings are designed to attract opposition. People who either happy or indifferent rarely attend, that's the way it works, complainers need to complain while people who are for such building don't feel the need to attend and pat the developers on the back.
As for parking spots, it's over the subway line, it's designed with that in mind, parking is not a selling point. And the traffic issue didn't seen to work when people tried to use that excuse when the Heintzman Place was in development, but it worked for the failed development over the Dundas West subway spot called Giraffe. Go figure.
The city isn't going to get any smaller so get used to these kinds of thing in our neighbourhood.
These sorts of meetings always brings out the welfare types and old people who have nothing better to do that to complain and want everybody else to live in the same sort of squalor they like living in.
Nothing but a bunch of losers who have nothing better to do than to find something anything to complain about to make everybody else's lives as miserable as theirs.
People really want to buy a view of the park and the more condos the better!
Hello All, I've signed on to receive various city dept announcements and went through the Etobicoke York agenda. I am a volunteer for the High Park Stewardship Group, played in High Park many, many years ago, and grew up in the Junction. I now live downtown where condos are sprouting up as fast as mushrooms. At the end of my street a company called Lanterra wants to put two 58-storey condos on Yonge St., over the subway, often stated as the reason for increased density.
You might think I would be in favor of the development in your neighborhood, at 14 storeys, and it actually does have some modulation versus the elongated boxes that niow make up Bay and possibly to Yonge Street.
One of the problems, weaknesses with development, is that one project seems be the model for another project, so this development could well mean there will be a line of condos of similar height stretching along Bloor. My question to you and your planner, does such a scenario, add to the High Park neighborhood; does it create a wall between the park and the single housing north of this line. And, what are the soft issues in terms of servicing this increased density.
Some of you might not have heard of Section 37 which is a fee developers must pay with a percentage going to capital projects in your neighborhood. If this plan is approved make sure that happens, upfront, now later on. You might also ask your planner what green environmental topics have been addressed, an approach that will be used in the Waterfront Development
As to the neighborhood, maintaining a neighborhood, I make the point that immense towers that I see around me disenfranchise the residents from the streetscape and thereby impede the development of ownership and a neighborhood. Also, some of you might not there was a Bloor Street Corridor Study a couple of years back. Check that out to see how this development and future development dovetails with this project
(Also, I didn't see the number and size of units in this development. The problem with the downtown development is that the tiny apartments are not conducive to families. Two people might have to live in them though to pay the rent, yes rent, since many units have in past purchased by investors, offshore investors.
To finish: I have read some of the remarks, nasty folks some of you are. Please inform yourselves on the nature of development, pros and cons. And, maybe attend a few meetings.
Sarah Doucette is doing the right thing by not listening to the few ignorant NIMBYs who are against this beautiful project and still want to live in the 1930's.
That Section 37 money is great because it can be used to preserve the High Park Zoo and pay for nonprofit childcare until we can vote Mayor Ford out of office in almost 3 years and get it all funded directly.
So a few don't get their way and the rest of the area can all reap huge benefits. That is why Sarah is doing it and that is why Sarah is right!