Thursday’s headlines

9 comments

1. I was really disappointed to learn that Gord Perks and the NIMBY hordes won out over height and density at Dundas West. I cannot think of a more appropriate corner for a high-density tower. Really dumb.

2. Underpass Park sounds great — let’s extend it all along underneath the Gardiner.

3. “I was really disappointed to learn that Gord Perks and the NIMBY hordes won out over height and density at Dundas West.”

   I completely agree, given that right across the street is the horrid Crossways Complex, with its tall, cheap-looking twin towers, and to the south, Bloor-Dundas Square, one of Toronto’s ugliest buildings. Giraffe was something much more interesting.

   My beef are with towers that clearly don’t belong – the Distillery District highrises, Brad Lamb’s condo tower planned to go next to the Royal Alex (which has already been “appealed” to the OMB, before the city got a chance to say no), the private condo complex for the foot of Yonge Street, the tower that’s going to overwhelm the low/mid rise St. Lawrence Neighbourhood. (Interesting how all of these are Peter Clewes designs?)

4. Well said, Paul.

   and well said, Jason. Let us stop treating Gardiner as the problem. It is not the barrier between the city and the lake. The stuff underneath it is (i.e., Lakeshore). So let us address the real problem with some creative thinking, such as using Gardiner as the roof for some interesting public space.

5. Re: OMB nixes Tower at Dundas West… Councillor Perks is the perfect example of ‘do as I say but not as I do”… Density is good so long as it’s in somebody else’s ward. Taking out on-street parking along a retail strip is good in somebody else’s ward (re: Annette) but not his own (re: Perks’ opposition to bike lanes along Roncy).

6. Disappointed in Dundas West Tower. The best way to obscure ugly towers — Crossways as Sean points out — is with a good one. Plus, as has been pointed out, 2 streetcar lines plus a subway: no better spot.

7. Bloor and Dundas is the exact place to build a tower, especially a cool one. But there were many issues with access affecting drivers, TTC, walkers, and cyclists and its too bad that the developer did not buy more property to avoid the issue. This was a real serious issue but I found most people were just resistant to change. 20 Years ago there were highly polluting metal works along Dundas and that apparently was ok but dont ever build a new tower over a transit hub. Perks called it a “cookie cutter condo”, what is he smoking ?

8. ‘It’s pretty clear that Spacing readers are in denial when there is not a single comment on the Miller’s self serving stunt yesterday on the “found’ surplus. Nothing is more evident than that the Mayor has deliberately fudged the numbers to make himself look good. The Auditor General should be asked to investigate how the City can lose track of $350 Million only to find it when it serves the Mayor’s political agenda. I have experienced Miller fudging numbers before on Building Trade Union Construction monopoly issue and have little doubt we are seeing the same thing here just as we saw it before the last election when he claimed City finances were in great shape only to find out after he was election that we were broke. Miller is a political con man plain and simple and has lost all claim to credibility, integrity or respect by selling out the beliefs of those who supported him. He promised better but was not up to the task.’

   DM

9. Folks,

   I’m more than happy to argue this one out. I think it raises important questions about how we manage intensification throughout the City. However, I’d like to ask that you do a little checking and reflection before you dismiss the local community as NIMBYs.

   First, it was the City on advice from our planning staff which refused the application, and successfully defended the refusal at the OMB. The planning report details several important concerns:

   http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-24714.pdf

   Also, the neighborhood and City worked together to develop an avenue study that substantially increased the permitted density in the area, and at this site in particular. THIS NEIGHBOHOOD SUPPORTS INTESIFICATION.

   http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2009/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-24707.pdf

   The local community worked with a developer further west on on Bloor to reach a consensus on a large condominium building on the northeast corner of bloor and Indian Road. This was well above the in-force zoning for both height and density. Based on that community/developer consensus staff supported the project.

   This community also supported a very large project at 403 Keele (just north of dundas). That project has a remarkable affordable home ownership componenet. It also has more units than were planned for 1540 Bloor.

   Why would a neighborhood and planning department which has consistently supported intesification in the area oppose the 1540 Bloor application?

   Simply put the Giraffe building was in the words of the OMB “not good planning”. The decision isn’t on their web-site yet, but you can check later for case # PL090733, or contact my office.

   Sitting on a very small site, the building would have overwhelmed the neighboring context both present and planned. The small site would have meant no meaningful setbacks were possible. Yes, the building had small twists and turns, but to a person on the street it would have felt like 27 storeys going straight up, which is completely out of keeping with the area both as you see it today, and as it is planned for the future. To get a sense of this even though it would have been roughly the same height as the Crossways (which is a hideous mistake) it would have been 3x the density of that oppressive building. The crammed feeling would also have completely overwhelmed/undermined the adjecent properties to the east, putting the street-life at risk.

   It would also have further stressed a bad intersection. The access/egress was largely through a lane the exits onto Dundas between the subway station and Bloor street, just beside the streetcar turning entrance.

   The avenue study suggests that either this site could take 10 stories or, with assembly of a couple of small properties to the east, 15 storeys. It also recommends reconfigering bloor for an immediate bike lane and a future narrowing. It has very interesting ideas and dramatic intensification for the ridiculous parking lot to the south.

   Avenues are not the downtown. We should not be looking for a forest of towers at every subway station. We need to build lively dense mid and upper mid rise buildings that make for comfortable places to be, support retail, employment, housing, and the adjacent neighborhoods. The proposal at 1540 would have undermined this community-supported vision for smart intesification. Instead, it was just another tall condo with no regard for the nuances and thoughtful intesification plan that the community and City staff would extrodinaruily hard to create. I commend the avenue study to anyone who wants smart intensification rather than a simple minded bigger-is-always-better approach to development.

   Gord