On Ossington Avenue yesterday, I saw front-end loaders turning an old warehouse into rubble and crumbs. If you’ve been following the news you may ask: Already? A public meeting last week for 109 Oz, a proposed six-storey building by RAW Design and developers Reserve Properties, generated a loud and articulate outcry from some neighbours. But this was another project, down the block – Motif, a five story complex by the same developers, approved a year ago.
In other words: The battle to prevent large developments here, on Toronto’s hottest block, is already over.
So what are we talking about when we talk about Ossington? Two things.
One: midrise. The city has made a commitment to push for more buildings of four to twelve stories. There are problems; still new midrise buildings are nowgoing up. RAW is leading the way, and their projects look very attractive and likely to improve their neighbourhoods. Good for them and their clients. We need more buildings of this scale to enhance central Toronto’s underdeveloped major streets. They bring new housing, at a level of density that is comfortable, without badly disrupting the fabric of the city. *
Number two, we are are talking about the character of neighbourhoods. The Ossington residents’ group, led by two philosophers and an actor, is very articulate. (And I hope they win in getting the building’s large retail space carved up into smaller ones.) Their planning critique, along with the usual mix of unrealistic complaints and pseudo-techincal arguments, makes this interesting point:
Ossington’s status as a destination is tightly bound with its existing vernacular built form: the tight retail rhythm not only does not detract but strengthens its desirability as a destination, and the main street character of the massing and scale of buildings is an inextricable ingredient of the “charm” that goes into making it a destination. We contend that it is the lowrise character of the strip, and the attendant sense of the relaxation of urban pressure, that makes possible Ossington’s status as a destination, as a place of mystery and possibility, as a safe-place for creative expression, an escape from quotidian banality.
I understand the desire to preserve this scene. (And also the desire for a walkable grocery store, though not a quotidian banal one, of course.)
However: This completely misses the point about this specific development. Have a look at the site of 109 Ossington (via Google Earth, around 2011):
See the charm?
There’s a reason it is being developed: Like the other development site, at 41 Ossington, it is a large parcel of land, partly occupied by a small, low-value building. It is an inevitable target for development. It is also unusual in the area. It may set a precedent for the consolidation and development of other properties on the street, but not an easy one; other sites will have to be assembled, an expensive and protracted process.
But that garage and used car lot also puts the lie to this critique:
The residents of our neighbourhood paid to experience a neighbourhood-type lifestyle.
“Neighbourhood,” in Toronto planning jargon, means a principally residential area, largely houses, with “neighbourhood-serving” retail. Lower Ossington Avenue has always had some of that, but a self-storage facility and a car lot and garage — the former uses of the condo sites — are not part of it.
More importantly, this entire argument is the NIMBYism of new arrivals: ostensibly progressive, but sentimental and selfish. These professionals, gentrifiers of the area, are complaining about the change in their neighbourhood that will admit large numbers of aspiring downtowners. What drew them here, five or ten years ago? The Vietnamese karaoke bars? The Portuguese fishmonger? No. It was the allure of Victorian houses, scruffy but cheap – especially if there was a used car lot behind your house! – and the tequila bars, galleries, edgy restaurants. In short, the presence of Hipness.
Hipness moves on. It always has, and it always will. It cannot be regulated and it cannot be zoned. And it brings money behind it. Already the city’s working visual artists, indie musicians and young architects have moved on to Parkdale. Gallery TPW is moving. In another decade the remaining vintage clothing stores will be gone; most of the galleries probably will too. Ossington will either get busier and attract high-street retail (a la Yorkville of the 1970s and 80s) or become arty and upscale. Greenwich Village, the Marais, Shoreditch, Prenzlauer Berg.
Name one area in a prosperous city that has become creative in character and then stayed that way, impervious to financial and cultural upheaval. There isn’t one. Ossington will not be the first.
This is not a short argument (and you should see how much the “neighbours” have to say). But here is a simpler one: Cities change. Aside from the problems with Toronto’s very ad hoc planning process, there is a cultural problem when people can’t accept the reality that they are living in the middle of a vital city. Vital cities always have wrecking balls, and often people’s feelings get hurt, too.
* There is another alternative, still unexplored: cheaper, smaller-scale walkups. But that’s another story.
95 comments
I don’t know, Alex… your article speaks of a certain inevitability that people often associate with gentrification.
Gentrification does not have to be inevitable.
Or, gentrification in the form you’ve referenced, doesn’t have to be inevitable.
What’s problematic about Yorkville and Queen West, and what’s looking like Ossington, is two things:
– pushing out people due to affordability
– the introduction of a consumer culture, that lacks a sense of community/responsibility (think of people shouting, and vandalizing things at 2am on queen west). I.E. it’s not more new people moving in, it’s the type of activity that these new people are attracted to.
These two elements are not inevitable. They are the result of a passive residents, and a deference to development/money/capital. The city has mechanisms that can prevent this.
A certain element of gentrification might be “inevitable” – i.e. the Hipness you referenced – artists will move to cheap and edgy downtown places.
Their introduction to the neighbourhood doesn’t mean they are less authentically part of that neighbourhood – and they can and should be involved in preserving a the character/affordability of the neighbourhood they’ve made their own. These people may have more time than their working class neighbours, and education/access to planning/activist language, thus the ability to represent the interests of their area in the arenas of urban planning where it is possible to halt development that would lead to a consumer-based destination style neighbourhood.
As someone who lives/has lived in neighbourhoods pre-complete gentrification, I understand it is my responsibility to not be passive when negative change occurs. It’s not NIMBYism – it’s good to bring development and people to neighbourhoods — rather it’s cautious protection, ensuring the right kind of small business, neighbourhood-friendly development occurs.
Futile, maybe – Inevitable, no.
Great article. I was really surprised at the hysteria surrounding this development. I agree with a the opposition on a couple points: the main floor should be multiple retail spaces, and that the developers should be required to present accurate renderings.
But otherwise, I welcome this mid-rise movement.
I can think of four things that would improve the project:
1) main floor retail should be broken up into smaller units — critics are absolutely right to complain about there only being a single big box retailer
2) there should be greater diversity of available units (not just small bachelor pads)
3) use punch-out panels to separate units, so that owners can expand size of units should they choose later on (adding a floor, or additional adjacent rooms)
4) reduce the number of car parking spaces available down from 70, and add bike storage (the city is still just figuring out that high parking capacity is not a desirable feature of condos intended for walkable neighbourhoods)
And I would urge the condo opponents to worry less about the size of the building, and more about what it would take to make Ossington a vibrant walkable street with daytime foot traffic (and not just night-time restaurant and club-goers). Ossington residents should welcome anything that would get a fruit market, bakery or small grocer on the street somewhere.
Daniel,
not quite sure with how your logic ties to the development discussed here. So if the community does prevent this midrise development, people won’t be pushed out of Ossington because of affordability? Peeling through all their arguments, you will see at the core it is the desire to protect the gain they have enjoyed in their property value (one guy apparently from the OSA literally said that in an exchange with me on Torontoist). So there you go with your affordability argument. Actually the cause and effect go the other way around, the rise of property value triggers the development, not vice versa. The introduction of cheaper and denser housing stock may serve the purpose of preserving affordability.
Your second point, is mid-rise and high-rise community necessarily lack the sense of community/responsibility? Yes and no. Build form does not dictates sense of community. I come from country where everyone in the city lives in midrise or highrise building and the building form certainly does not prevent the sense of community. However, a largely transient population is indeed detrimental to the sense of community. And the current incarnation of Toronto midrises and highrises, with its near mono-culture of small units, certainly contributes to that issue. Call it the growing pain of a young metropolis, Toronto has yet to learn how to build communities around towers. But it will never learn it by clinging to the lower-rise, low-density build form.
Finally! Someone with some good sense. The hysteria is overblown and misguided.
Gentrification happens because poor city planning provides incentives to missallocate development resources. Decades later, a tipping point is reached where the incetives to develop elsewhere are no longer sufficient to pass over the dillapidated, economically depressed neighbourhood and it is rapidly brought up to the standards where it should be. Ossington should have been razed and developed into a mid-rise neighbourhood decades ago. To say it’s not inevitable is laughable. The only way to block gentrification is massive amounts of wealth (see Rosedale). All Ossington area residents have massive amounts of mortgage debt, and maxed out credit cards from buying hipster douchebag clothes. Prepare to be obliterated.
I think that it should be pointed out that the example of “hip” neighbourhoods being gentrified in other cities (Greenwich Village, especially), while certainly true, do have mechanisms to retain some of the original character and class of the residents. The existence of rent control in NYC is an important part of the fabric – in GV it plays out by having a mix of classes and cultures living side-by-side. Toronto’s gentrified neighbourhoods don’t really maintain this mix.
Another issue in Toronto is that our real estate market is arguably the most expensive in N. America, meaning that we are running out of areas for the “Hipness” to move toward. What’s next? Hipster Brampton? I don’t think so…
Compared to the 250+ story skyscraper condos going up around the city, this development doesn’t seem that bad. It would have been nice to see more of a post-modern/vintage style to the architecture, but it is a step in the right direction.
109OZ looks fine, especially if retail goes in at street level. The development that went in between Halton and Argyle in the late 90s/early 2000s is arguably much less urban and doesn’t contribute at all to any sort of feel on the street. Where were the protestors then?
Around 1984 or so, a giant hue and cry went up when Le Chateau rented a storefront on Queen West, “Oh no”, everyone said. “This will destroy the vibe of the neighbourhood”. The Gap and Club Monaco moved in as well, and the artists and the musicians decamped across Spadina where they could again afford the rent .So Ossington is what, the third or fourth shift since then? It’s happens. It always happens. behappy you were there at the beginning, and enjoy it while it happens. And remember…in 10 years, you’ll be the ones nipping into that big-box retailer looking for pampers at 10 pm.
Agreed with John @10:58 am and the author regarding small retail.
Over the past decade I’ve watched the north side of Bloor east of Bedford sprout some very nice condos, which is fine, except the prior variety of places to shop & eat are being replaced by larger banks, drugstores, a Starbucks, etc.—all of which were already present nearby.
These units are more spacious than the ones they replaced, but to pedestrians that only means more walking to access fewer businesses. The incentives for developers to seek upmarket, big-brand “anchor tenants” are obvious, so the city has an equally obvious role in ensuring that the needs of pedestrians—citizens—are put first.
The Ossington residents’ group really needs to find someone with graphic skills to do an accurate mock-up of 109 OZ, according to the design filed for by-law exemption.
The concept photo that every news piece falls back on is misleading. It omits the mechanical penthouse and shows 109OZ as 30% shorter than it will actually be.
This post is spot on. In the long run, the only way to make housing affordable is via more supply. Attempts to restrict development and densification under the guise of preserving neighbourhood character effectively raises the value of downtown homes at the expense of would be home owners and tenants. As many have pointed out, cities change. Obviously one can quibble about the merits of a particular condo project, but attempts to stop them pose major inter generational fairness issues. Young people become permanently priced out of the market. And once housing values reach a certain point, you can be sure that rents will follow and artists , small stores and such will be gone anyways.
Just because it fits within the mid-rise zoning envelope doesn’t mean it’s a good building.
While most of the backlash to 109OZ is motivated by NIMBYism, this type of standoff is indicative of the underlying (and understandable) distrust of developers in Toronto. You say “there is a cultural problem when people can’t accept the reality that they are living in the middle of a vital city.” Perhaps the real problem is that developers are concerned more with profit than with urban issues and providing good housing.
If you look at the plans for 109OZ, most of the units are narrow tunnels with one window wall at the end (3.6 m/12 ft. wide and up to 15 m/50 ft. deep!). With little access to natural light or ventilation, you would fare better in a basement apartment. This model of housing (double loaded corridors with deep single aspect units) yields high profits, but at the expense of quality.
Cities change. Intensification is essential. Mid-rise is great. This site could use new buildings. But if you are building anything, build it right. That means providing a variety of flexible and affordable units (109OZ, mostly bachelor and one-bedroom units starting around $300,000, does not do this) as well as ensuring that new units are well-designed to provide cross-ventilation and adequate natural light—basic passive design principles that improve quality of life and significantly decrease energy-use. And at least make it look good. Back to the drawing board, please.
This is my neighbourhood and, yes, neighbourhoods change… hopefully for the better. This is definitely not for the better.
Imagine the creative possibilities of a large, former garage and empty lot put in the right hands and minds. Look across the street and you’ll see a former garage that turned into an events space for a while, then a gallery for a few years and now it is an incredibly popular and successful micro-brewery/restaurant. This is the kind of natural, urban and creative evolution of space that has enlivened and enriched the area. The dropping in of a cookie cutter “funky” condo (a definite, dated, 90’s funk at that – this development could pass as an arsenio hall haircut) with a shoppers or metro wedged in the bottom does not a good neighbour make. That neighbourhood exists a thousand times over in Ontario – why not leave ours alone?
This development is based on the idea of ossington being special, being a cool, hip place with galleries etc… – yet it is these very developments that drive the galleries (MKG, MOCCA, TPW, Roenisch are all leaving soon) and independent businesses out.
Yes, it happens, this is another form of (premature in this case) evolution and we’ve seen it all before – but do we like what we see? No, we don’t. This neighbourhood does not. This neighbourhood says no. This neighbourhood will fight for itself. And, that’s why I love my neighbourhood.
CR, if the critique is mainly around the quality of architectural design, instead of the scale and build form, then I do agree with you. The design with a double loaded corridors with deep single aspect units does tend to produce terrible living space, and it is good to demand the architect to work harder to produce better design within the same building envelop. But from my previous exchange from OSA, it seemed to me that OSA is rejecting midrise form outright, and demanding lowrise (4 storey) instead, which strikes me as an thinly-disguised attempt to kill the project altogether. It would be much more productive if the residents negotiate in good faith and try to nudge the developer into producing a better design, instead of attempting to block the development altogether. At the end of the day, if the residents just play the obstruction game, then the attempt is doomed, either at the city or at OMB and the developer has no incentive to adopt any of the reasonable changes; however, if the residents focus on constructive suggestions, then the developer might have the incentive to adopt those changes in exchange for the residents’ support.
Susan, and others,
It’s my neighbourhood too, and I find it kind of offensive when you say ‘the neighbourhood’ doesn’t like it. I love the growth and entrepreneurship that this kind of development brings. I love the change, the activity, the densification. I bought knowing (or at least hoping) things would change. They did. I’m happy.
“The neighbourhood” is not unanimous in dissent. Don’t put words in people mouths. Yes, you hate it, but don’t speak for me.
6 Stories is not high. Be careful what you say no to. Your hood could handle much more density. Smart building, small retail & why not include public space in your fight, but say yes to the lowrise. I feel a little bad for the home owners immediately adjacent, but not that bad, still an amazing investment.
Right, walkups. That is what the Ossington Community Association wants to see on that site.
Toronto’s Official Plan strikes a compromise: Grow, but Protect.
The first section of the OP says TO should fit into the region in a good way.
The second section of the OP designates 25% of the city’s land for intensification. The other 75% is supposed to see “little physical change” in order to “protect neighbourhoods”.
The Avenues — Queen East and West, Ronces, Eglinton, Bloor — are part of the 25%. They are supposed to get Midrise.
Ossington is part of the 75%. It is supposed to not get Midrise. It is supposed to stay Lowrise.
(I’m sure I don’t need to remind the ultra savvy urban planning geeks at Spacing of these totally familiar baseline facts.)
So … uh … why exactly are we even talking about this — ah — blatantly illegal proposal? Really, no one has ever explained this to my satisfaction.
I am surprised that someone writing at Spacing Toronto would completely neglect the specific details concerning Toronto’s Official Plan, and the relevance of these details to the 109OZ development.
Rather than speak in vague terms about NIMBYism, or the opposition of supposed newcomers to the hood to this development (check out last night’s OMNI broadcast to hear from Portuguese residents who have been here 35 years or more about their opposition to the development), it would be really great if people interested in urban planning and how it is or should be played out in Toronto grounded their discussion in the very sensible details about how growth is supposed to proceed in Toronto, again as articulated in the Official Plan—which is, after all, what all this will come down to when it goes to the OMB, as it probably will, given the intransigence and past history of Reserve Properties when dealing with the concerns of communities in which they want to develop.
The author speaks of the articulate voice of the philosophers and actor (among others, I should say) in opposing this development. I’m one of those philosophers; and we have presented our articulations in a format that is publicly available to anyone who really is interested—as I would hope the planning geeks reading Spacing Toronto would be—in the deeper issues here. The document to read for those who want to be informed is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context.
These deeper issues discussed in that document have to do with the fact that the overriding imperative of the Official Plan is to “Grow, but Protect”. The Plan very explicitly articulates how this imperative is to be achieved: by identifying 4 categories of areas of the City, comprising about 25% of City lands, where significant intensification of the midrise and higher development is to occur, while protecting the other 75% of lands where such significant intensification is not supposed to occur.
The 4 categories in which significant intensification is “permitted” (according to the City of Toronto’s director of Urban Design) are the Downtown Core, Employment Lands, Centres (like Yonge and Eg) and Avenues. There is a map in the Official Plan—Map 2—which shows all of the relevant areas. (See the reference document above for the map.)
Ossington is not on that map.
Ossington is not among the lands for which midrise and higher development is permitted to occur. It is rather in the protected 75% of lands. This makes good sense, since the introduction of midrise development in this low-rise, closely packed neighborhood will have clearly destabilizing negative impacts on the business, residential, and school communities in this presently wonderful and distinctive area of the City. Again, I invite people who are interested in the facts—really, basic facts—about these impacts to look at the publicly available research document ‘109OZ in context’, available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context.
Of course the City is going to grow. But as per the Official Plan, it should grow in a sensible way. Midrise developments—e.g., 109OZ, which though 6 stories is, with its double-height first story and mechanical HVAC “penthouse”, really the height of an 8 story building—2-8 times the height of any existing building in the area—are suited to designated Avenues: major transportation and retail corridors like King, Queen, Dundas, Bloor, and Eglinton, which are broad enough to absorb larger buildings. Ossington is not an Avenue, nor is it anything like an Avenue: it is a 2-lane 17.5m street right-of-way 600m restaurant row and a regional (at least) destination district.
I understand that people unfamiliar with the Official Plan and with the crucial distinctions relevant to the 109OZ case might fall back on the “hey, Toronto has to grow, so suck it up” argument, bad as it is in ignoring basic principles of proper planning according to which new development should be sensitively integrated into existing context. I expected better from Spacing Toronto, but hey, writers are busy, and these things happen. I hope that fans of this site will be inspired to contact us at association@ossingtoncommunity.ca, join our cause, and do what they can to assist us in keeping the distinctive Space that is the Ossington strip alive and well, for the benefit of the City as well as its business, residential, and school communities.
I am surprised that someone writing at Spacing Toronto would completely neglect the specific details concerning Toronto’s Official Plan, and the relevance of these details to the 109OZ development.
Rather than speak in vague terms about NIMBYism, or the opposition of supposed newcomers to the hood to this development (check out last night’s OMNI broadcast to hear from Portuguese residents who have been here 35 years or more about their opposition to the development), it would be really great if people interested in urban planning and how it is or should be played out in Toronto grounded their discussion in the very sensible details about how growth is supposed to proceed in Toronto, again as articulated in the Official Plan—which is, after all, what all this will come down to when it goes to the OMB, as it probably will, given the intransigence and past history of Reserve Properties when dealing with the concerns of communities in which they want to develop.
The author speaks of the articulate voice of the philosophers and actor (among others, I should say) in opposing this development. I’m one of those philosophers; and we have presented our articulations in a format that is publicly available to anyone who really is interested—as I would hope the planning geeks reading Spacing Toronto would be—in the deeper issues here. The document to read for those who want to be informed is here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context.
These deeper issues discussed in that document have to do with the fact that the overriding imperative of the Official Plan is to “Grow, but Protect”. The Plan very explicitly articulates how this imperative is to be achieved: by identifying 4 categories of areas of the City, comprising about 25% of City lands, where significant intensification of the midrise and higher development is to occur, while protecting the other 75% of lands where such significant intensification is not supposed to occur.
The 4 categories in which significant intensification is “permitted” (according to the City of Toronto’s director of Urban Design) are the Downtown Core, Employment Lands, Centres (like Yonge and Eg) and Avenues. There is a map in the Official Plan—Map 2—which shows all of the relevant areas. (See the reference document above for the map.)
Ossington is not on that map.
Ossington is not among the lands for which midrise and higher development is permitted to occur. It is rather in the protected 75% of lands. This makes good sense, since the introduction of midrise development in this low-rise, closely packed neighborhood will have clearly destabilizing negative impacts on the business, residential, and school communities in this presently wonderful and distinctive area of the City. Again, I invite people who are interested in the facts—really, basic facts—about these impacts to look at the publicly available research document ‘109OZ in context’, available here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context.
Of course the City is going to grow. But as per the Official Plan, it should grow in a sensible way. Midrise developments—e.g., 109OZ, which though 6 stories is, with its double-height first story and mechanical HVAC “penthouse”, really the height of an 8 story building—2-8 times the height of any existing building in the area—are suited to designated Avenues: major transportation and retail corridors like King, Queen, Dundas, Bloor, and Eglinton, which are broad enough to absorb larger buildings. Ossington is not an Avenue, nor is it anything like an Avenue: it is a 2-lane 17.5m street right-of-way 600m restaurant row and a regional (at least) destination district.
I understand that people unfamiliar with the Official Plan and with the crucial distinctions relevant to the 109OZ case might fall back on the “hey, Toronto has to grow, so suck it up” argument, bad as it is in ignoring basic principles of proper planning according to which new development should be sensitively integrated into existing context. I expected better from Spacing Toronto, but hey, writers are busy, and these things happen. I hope that fans of this site will be inspired to contact us at association@ossingtoncommunity.ca, join our cause, and do what they can to assist us in keeping the distinctive Space that is the Ossington strip alive and well, for the benefit of the City as well as its business, residential, and school communities.
One other thing. The author says, referencing the bulldozing of the perfectly nice brick building at 41 Ossington (which has caused cracks and other damage in nearby residences) that “The battle to prevent large developments here, on Toronto’s hottest block, is already over.” Again, some research into the facts, available at http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context, would go far towards clarifying matters.
Actually, it’s a fascinating story. Reserve’s infamously misleading promo pictures played a role here: nearly everyone thought they were asking to build townhouses, with a 4-story towards the front with a little hat on top. Nearby residents protested vociferously, but with Pantalone having just vacated and Layton coming in behind the gun (and with the tragic death of his father no doubt occupying his attention), the community at large was not informed. I live one block up from 41 Ossington and I never received a notice of a Community Consultation or any other indication that an attempt to convert the strip to midrise was taking place.
So, there was effectively no broader community consultation about 41 Ossington. Maybe 30 people knew what was going on.
The story continues. Those who were aware protested vociferously, but in the middle of negotiations Reserve pulled out (citing the 4-month rule, according to which if the City doesn’t return a decision in 4 months the developer can go straight to the OMB) and went to the OMB, then cowed the City with a transparently fallacious argument to the effect that, although Ossington isn’t a designated Avenue (again, Ossington does not fall under any of the categories that the Official Plan targets for intensification, hence is supposed to be in the 75% of protected areas), Map 3 of the Official Plan says that someday, Ossington will be widened to 20m (the minimum for being an Avenue) and so they should be allowed to build as if Ossington is already an Avenue. This argument is transparently fallacious since Map 3 is silly: it is supposed to be tracking heavy transportation routes, but Ossington only carries 3% of north-south traffic in the West end; plus Ossington will never be widened, since doing so would require tearing down all existing buildings on the strip, including the 4 historical designation buildings (among which are Toronto’s first library). But the City, shaking in its boots for fear of the OMB, caved and gave Reserve—again, with zero broader community consultation—concessions that increase their original density and gave them another story. Yes; unbelievably, they ended up with 6 storeys, not 5, at the end of the day.
All that sucks, especially for the affected residents. But at the end of the day 41 Ossington rests on a bunch of hooey. Moreover, planner Francis Kwashie says that 41 Ossington is not a precedent for a variety of reasons. So the battle is not over. It is just beginning.
Oh, I see that Alex has twittered @RAW. That explains a lot.
“What drew them here, five or ten years ago? The Vietnamese karaoke bars? The Portuguese fishmonger? No. It was the allure of Victorian houses, scruffy but cheap – especially if there was a used car lot behind your house! – and the tequila bars, galleries, edgy restaurants. In short, the presence of Hipness.”
Sorry Alex, some of us were here before hip and Ossington could be conjoined in the same sentence. I’ve been down here since 1993, and in the neighbourhood since 1982. And not as a property owner. And loved the Portuguese fishmongers and butchers and greengrocers, the Vietnamese Pho shops and haircutting places ,,, many now taken over by a deluge of restaurants that may or may not be in business in three years’ time, given the business cycle. (Let’s see, Paramour and Beau Lieu are out of business, so is the crepe place, formerly a soup place, and before that a sports shop and before that a groceria.). If, by the title of your blog, you are claiming to have read Eric Arthur’s No Mean City, I suggest you reread it. Along with whatever Jane Jacobs you lay your hands on (You sound like her nemesis, the great wrecking ball of New York: Robert Moses). Better act quickly, though, because hipsters are making those books hard to find. It’s precisely attitudes like yours that are forcing small businesses out of the neighbourhood, like Frantic City, a wonderful bookshop. The owner has no time for the party pseuds, who couldn’t read a book for the text of them. Meanwhile, unlike Yorkville, this is a working, functioning neighbourhood.. As much as the hipsters may want to buy a pig in a poke (talk to Maynard G. Krebs about that one) and aspire to a lifestyle approved by credit card, there are still immigrant families here, with 30 or more years of sweat equity in the community, who will hang on to what they have, and have always had. They built a neighbourhood.Toronto is a city of neighbourhoods created from random bits and pieces that architects and developers and drive-by bloggers despise. Nevertheless, out of that crooked timber there was cobbled together a liveable city. My immigrant neighbours are staying, hipsters or no. So am I..
J. Wilson> If a writer twittering at a subject in a piece “explains a lot” you’re going to have a problem with most writers on the planet. But, at least you took a swipe at his integrity.
Sorry, my remark about Alex’s twittering @RAW wasn’t intended as a swipe at Alex’s integrity, and I apologize for writing a comment that impression.
Few things raise levels of discord like condos in Toronto. That we still write notes at each other about them, and not fight in the streets, is remarkable.
We have NOT yet come anywhere near the point of outgrowing our low-rise zoned neighbourhood. There is so much development that CAN be done to stylishly and strategically re-invent our less glamourous parts of Ossington while, at the same time, quadrupling current density.
To be honest, I really don’t know anything about the Tweetersphere. And I just joined FB one week ago. So seriously, apologies for thinking that the fact of twittering @RAW was significant.
When you call Alex a ‘Raw Acolyte’ you certainly aren’t elevating the discussion. It’s what’s known in philosophy as an ad hominem attack.
You’re right; we apologize, we apologize! Now can we get back to the substantive issues? Like the fact that Ossington is not on Map 2, and for very good reason?
A few points:
It’s always hard in cases like this to know whether the local residents’ group is (wisely) playing politics or naive. Benj Hellie and J. Wilson’s comments here suggest naivete. The densities and heights in Toronto’s Official Plan are only a starting point for development; they are in many cases absurdly low. That is confusing, it should be changed, but if you don’t understand it, you don’t understand the “basic facts” at play here. Adam Vaughan made this “underzoning” explicit in that Toronto Star piece. This practice goes back to the anti-blockbusting battles of the early 1970s. City Hall and developer know this, and I’m sure the owner of Mundial Auto Sales knew it when he set a price for his land.
CR: Agreed. This building is not perfect. The plans of the apartments are far from ideal. They reflect conservative choices by the developer to produce many, easily sellable units. However the architects have made the best of it. Much depends on the details as they are built, and RAW has produced excellent work that gives me confidence.
Scot Blythe: I am sensitive to the issues you raise, which are aesthetic and emotional as well as financial. I do hope some of those immigrant families enjoy the enormous gains in real estate they’ve achieved over the past 30 years. They may also enjoy having a Shoppers Drug Mart on the block. (I know! I don’t like them either, except when I need baby wipes at midnight. Literally.)
Also, I would suggest reading some later Jane Jacobs – try The Nature of Cities or The Nature of Economies. Jacobs felt that, as much as possible, cities – and their attendant economic processes – should be allowed to evolve freely. Her great expressway battles in New York and Toronto were against (stupid) government incursions that would damage the “ecology” of the city.
She won. And now even the West Village, where gentrification is a good 70 years old (check out Malcolm Cowley’s Exile’s Return), is still more or less interesting. The NY Times Magazine had an interesting piece recently about why. http://nyti.ms/LnqeFA The upshot: Why are there still quirky small businesses here? Because the owners have chosen to forsake big profits and run businesses that are familiar and dear to them. They love the neighbourhood. Obviously the neighbour who owned the car lot didn’t love it enough to leave a few million dollars on the table. Would you?
Hi Alex,
Thanks very much for responding to several of the substantive issues here, and please accept my personal apology for previous snarkiness. We appreciate your discussion of our situation, since after all raising this issue to salience is the most important thing anyone can do at this point. As above, 41 Ossington slid in completely under the radar. That’s not happening with 103-111 Ossington, and we have people like you to thank for this.
That said, I don’t see that we are being naive here in calling to attention the Official Plan’s primary desideratum to “grow, but protect”, and to the explicit way in which the Plan aims to accomplish this desideratum.
It’s common to say that the zoning bylaws are outdated. But, two points.
First, our arguments pertaining to Ossington refer not to the zoning bylaws but to the Official Plan. The Plan was updated two years ago, and the direction to grow in the 4 categories specified in the plan while protecting the other 75% not suited to significant intensification is in no way outdated. Note, BTW, that the Official Plan does not set out specific densities and heights, except insofar as the Plan is supplemented by studies (e.g., the Avenues and Mid-rise Buildings Study, setting general performance standards for the Mid-rises that the Plan directs to be built on Avenues, such that, e.g., mid-rise building heights should be no taller than the street right-of-way) or Area or Avenue Studies for specific areas of the City.
Second, none of the people opposed to the 109OZ proposal are opposed to growth or intensification in that or other areas of Ossington. On the contrary, we want condos on that spot! We just want the building to conform to sound principles of proper planning, according to which new development should be appropriately integrated into existing built form, in such a way—again, following the explicit primary directive of the Official Plan—to prevent destabilization of business, residential, school and other communities due to significant negative impact.
This bears on the question of whether the zoning by-laws are outdated. On Ossington, they are not. Most buildings on Ossington are 1-3 stories, with height and density far below the existing bylaw maxima of 14m (46ft) height and 2.5 density. We could, I believe, triple existing density on Ossington within the existing limits. We have not outgrown our bylaws.
Again, I invite and strongly encourage interested parties to read our 109OZ information document carefully at http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context,, where these and other issues that are absolutely core to the situation on Ossington are discussed in gory, but to my mind fascinating, detail. And again, interested parties who are interested in helping us keep Ossington LOWRISE, as common sense, existing built form, our bylaws (which are nowhere near outgrown), and the Official Plan, all direct, are encouraged to contact us at association@ossingtoncommunity.ca.
Alex, many small commercial properties are forced into a de facto regulatory expropriation. MPAC applies and ‘highest and best use” approach to valuing small commercial properties. Compare that to Office towers and larger sites which benefit from the use of an income valuation approach. As such many properties, such the subject one, may only be able to generate enough rent to pay for taxes. This is in many cases is why owners of small properties are willing to sell to developers. It very well may be, if not today, certainly once the CVA caps expire, the issue is not small vs. large profits but losses vs. profits. Jane Jacobs was well aware of this and predicted as much.
Lastly the point that you made regarding the OP being a starting point is correct. It was done that way intentionally. The main reasons being the generation of section 37 monies and associated influence. What residents should fear most is the the creation of the typically vacant ground floor retail space that will likely invade the neighbourhood. Regardless of how many floors are above this will be the legacy. Look at the ‘vibrant’ Etobicoke Lake-shore for an example of this.
Where I find myself in agreement with the OSA is on the suitability of such development on a street of such width. Ossington really is to narrow for anything more than 4 stories (in its current context).
BTW. the use of the distorted artist conception image in this article should be reconsidered. It makes Ossington look as wide as the 401.
Im not going to get into the OP rules, but I take issue with the OSA who insinuate that long time residents are somehow more entitled to protest this. Just because you’ve lived in a neighborhood for 35 years doesn’t mean you have the right to make sure no change comes to that ‘hood.
But the thing I take issue with the most is that a building like this can destroy the neighborhood. Really?!!? Unless a building is so imposing, so huge, so soul destroying , it’s absurd to state that one building — and this one 6 storeys — will have such an impact. It’s like yelling “won’t somebody think of the children!”
Following up on Glen’s interesting remarks:
Everyone here agrees that there is a sense in which the Official Plan is a starting point; namely, that it does not set out specific height or density restrictions. There is another sense, however, in which the Plan is not open for interpretation; namely, as regards which City lands are to be considered appropriate targets (again, in the words of the head of Urban Design for the City—are “permitted” areas) for midrise and higher development. The 25% of lands falling into the 4 categories—Downtown Core, Centres (e.g., Yonge and Eg), Avenues, and Employment Lands—are laid out on Map 2. Map 2 is not a “starting point” for discussions about what should be developed where. Map 2 lays the foundation for where significant intensification is to occur; if that map is just a starting point, the whole point of the Official Plan is undermined (and the Plan gives no indication that it is to be so flexibly interpreted).
Where further details are required as supplemental to the Plan is, again, primarily in setting up the Area and Avenue studies that are supposed to set, among other things, height and density targets for specific areas undergoing intensification.
As for dead retail space on Ossington: there’s no longer any worry about this. After the townhouse development on the upper NE side of Ossington many years ago, all new development on Ossington has incorporated ground-floor retail. What we don’t want is chain store retail, of the sort that 109OZ is presently designed to suit (double-height ceilings, single 12K space). That would destroy the distinctive character of the business district (as would, more generally, the cramming of a looming mid-rise building right in the centre of the strip), which after all is Toronto’s restaurant row and a wonderfully eclectic regional, maybe even a world-class (see NYT and Guardian articles) destination district.
Finally, thanks for flagging the fact that Ossington is too narrow for development over 4 storeys. The Official Plan is absolutely right to exclude Ossington from the areas of the City that are appropriate targets for mid-rise and higher intensification.
Mitchell, thanks for commenting. Couple of responses.
First, no OSA person was insinuating that only longtime residents are entitled to protest the development. Scot above was simply aiming to correct the suggestion in Alex’s article that it is mainly newcomers to the hood who are protesting the proposed mid-rise building. Nearly every demographic in the hood is opposed to the proposal, for one reason or another, including many or most of the shopkeepers, who are wise enough to see that a short-term increase in foot-traffic will not be worth the quick undermining of the distinctive character of Ossington. We discuss negative impacts on business, residential, and school communities in the info document linked to above.
Second, though 109OZ is technically 6 storeys, with its double-height lobby and mechanical HVAC “penthouse”, it is 82 ft, the height of an 8-story building. That’s 2-8 times the height of every building on the strip. The building is also as wide as a 15-story building is tall (9 regular storefronts). It goes almost all the way back to the narrow laneway Argyle Place, directly across from which are dozens of mainly Portuguese residences whose backyard vegetable gardens will be cast into shadow for much of the afternoon by the directly looming presence of the building. Add that there are 80+ balconies up to 70ft up that will be bringing noise and direct—I mean direct!—overlook onto these residences.
Oh, and there’s the fact that Reserve/RAW want to turn Argyle Place, which crosses Argyle St, the primary walking path for children going to Givins-Shaw Elementary school, into a driveway for trucks and 70+ cars going to the underground parking in the back. So I guess you’re right that among the other things we are doing is yelling “Won’t somebody think of the children!”
Correction: the 80+ balconies will be both fore and aft of the building, not just off the back.
All this hubbub about this little Ossington Development while blocks away at Ordinance Triangle there’s a plan to build a number of 20 story condos with no plan to add adjacent community services. Between that and the whole surbanization of Liberty Village – the folks from these developments head north to use the parks etc. I’m fuzzy on the details but what I can tell you is that while 250 people attended the Ossington community consultation, 11 people attended the one for the Ordinance Triangle. I live between Trinity Bellwoods and Niagara. A huge new development will significantly change the access and experience of the community if no new Parks, Libraries, community centres or other things that make this city worth while added. Let’s choose our battles.
Hi Heather,
I agree that there are worse situations currently going on in the City—Niagara, which has gone from lowrise to highrise in the space of 7 years, to the severe disbenefit of residents and the artist’s communities there, is an especially egregious instance. Your concerns about the Ordnance proposal are certainly pressing. There are also large condos going up on Bloor north of High Park, King West, Queen East and West, Dundas, Roncy and any number of other locations. Communities all over the City are suffering from the pangs of significant intensification.
Still, the entire City has a vested interest in hoping that the Official Plan prevails as regards the Ossington situation.
Why? First note that in all the cases above, the areas in question *fall under one of the 4 categories that the Official Plan explicitly says are to be targeted for significant growth*. Niagara and the Ordnance Triangle are Employment Lands, and all of the other recently controversial developments are on Avenues (King, Queen, Dundas, Bloor, Roncy). This is why all these developments keep getting approved, over the protests of the existing communities: the Official Plan effectively gives developers a green light to build midrise or higher in these areas. This is why, for example, the protests of the Beach residents were to no avail: Queen is an Avenue.
Now, if you think communities in the vicinity of these comparatively broad Avenues are suffering from the incursion of mid-rise and higher development, what do you think will be the result if the areas permitted for intensive growth are expanded beyond those 4 categories, to include narrow 2-lane streets like Ossington and the like?
If Reserve succeeds in arguing that, notwithstanding that the Official Plan places Ossington in the protected 75% of lands, Ossington is nonetheless sufficiently “like” an Avenue (it’s not, but assume they succeed for the sake of argument), then it will be open season for condo development, not just on the major street Avenues and Employment lands, but on any street that has a bus running on it, closely packed residences and business ecologies be damned.
So I agree with you that your battle is important, and if I had enough time and money I would be fighting on that front, too. But the battle to keep Ossington low-rise is also very important, precisely because losing Ossington will set a precedent for the introduction of *much more* destabilizing significant growth throughout the City than we have yet seen so far.
Ms. Wilson —
I commend you on your dedication to protecting your neighbourhood. Being engaged and concerned about the development of our city and communities is something that is lacking in most parts of the city.
But I take issue with many of your assertions as they are disengenuous at best. The city is not, in any way shape or form, “suffering from the incursion of mid-rise … development.” The city needs it and, while you disagree, Ossington is the perfect place for it. There is no way development should be any more than 6 storeys on Ossington, and its not going to be. This condo is a good fit from everything I’ve read. And as a former Ossington-area resident (live in places on Crawford and Beatrice for 7 years) I’m glad to see this type of attractive residential development.
Despite your claim, Ossington is NOT 2 lanes, but 4 lanes since both sides of the street include parking. According to the City’s engineering documents, Ossington is about 1m less wide than Queen St W. which has a handful of 6 storey or more buildings that have not destroyed the neighbourhood.
I don’t have the time to dispel this, but your take on the balconies is bizarre (do homeowners in low-rise never make noise?); your assertion that the developers are breaking the law (they are not, they are seeking legal ammendments to the zoning bylaws, but your language protrays is as criminal); And worst off, you did use the “Won’t somebody think of the children!” plea (as noted by another commenter) by saying “There’s the fact that Reserve/RAW want to turn Argyle Place, which crosses Argyle St, which crosses Argyle St, the primary walking path for children going to Givins-Shaw Elementary school, into a driveway for trucks and 70+ cars going to the underground parking in the back.” That bit of nonsense undermines your POV. 70 cars do not come out at once; only a very limited amount of kids walk along the back alley of Argyle Pl (I ride on Argyle every day to work) — they almost all use Givins St.
Lastly (though I could debate this all day), if the shopkeepers on Ossington are opposed to this than they have no sense of irony. The strip was a dive before — the influx of new restaurants and bars is the reason why developers have moved into the ‘hood. If shop owners do not see themselves as the cause of this situation than they are navel-gazing to the extreme. If the long-time Portuguese residents are miffed, they should direct their anger at the bars and restaurants who bring in loads of people from outside the ‘hood that piss in the alleys and fight on the sidewalks late at night. By bringing in residents to live in the area, these old-time residents will have more people on their side to stop the continued bar-ification of the strip.
While a handful of your opposition concerns are valid, the thrust of your protest is weak and wreaks of NIMBYism at its worst.
How truly excellent that Mike Layton acted so quickly and decisively to implement the Ossington Area Planning Study! Please send Mike some love: http://mikelayton.ca/contact
Monica, thanks for taking the time to address my comments. Please allow me to clarify.
You say: “The city is not, in any way shape or form, “suffering from the incursion of mid-rise … development.” The city needs it and, while you disagree, Ossington is the perfect place for it.”
Well, I agree and disagree. I agree with you that the city needs mid-rise development; I’m with the Official Plan on this. I love the Official Plan; it’s a beautiful, wise, sensible document. Nonetheless, it’s hard to deny that many people are suffering from growing pains of the incursion of mid-rise development—for example, Heather, and the many people who have protested the mid-rise condos on the Avenues and Employment lands in their neighborhoods. Needs sometimes trump suffering.
As for Ossington, I disagree, and here again I’m with the Official Plan on this. The Official Plan says that Ossington is *not* suited for mid-rise development, since it does not fall into any of the 4 categories of area where the negative impacts of significant intensification are minimized, to the extent possible. Similarly, the Avenues and Mid-rise Building study directs mid-rise development to broad transporation thoroughfares, which are wide enough to sustain larger buildings. Ossington is in fact—I have measured it—17.5m from building to building at Argyle St. That’s 8 feet short of the minimum width for an Avenue. That’s why, among many other reasons, the Official Plan determined that Ossington should not be subject to mid-rise development. Personal taste is interesting, but ultimately the outcome of this particular fight will come down not to what you or I prefer, but to what the Official Plan says. And what the Plan says is that Ossington is among the protected 75%.
You say: “your take on the balconies is bizarre (do homeowners in low-rise never make noise?)”. Sure they do. But low-rise has fewer, lower balconies. Midrise has more, higher balconies. The latter produces more noise, and more privacy-destroying overlook, than the former. Go down to Bathurst and Wellington of a weekend evening and you’ll see what I mean.
You say: “your assertion that the developers are breaking the law (they are not, they are seeking legal ammendments to the zoning bylaws, but your language protrays is as criminal)”. I don’t believe I’ve ever asserted that the developers are breaking the law. I totally agree with you that seeking amendments to zoning bylaws is perfectly legal. On the other hand, the proposal, in attempting to build mid-rise in an area that according to the Official Plan, should not be subject to mid-rise or other significant intensification, does contravene the Official Plan. I wouldn’t say that the attempt itself is illegal, but I will say that it won’t hold up in court (lucky for us).
You say: “70 cars do not come out at once; only a very limited amount of kids walk along the back alley of Argyle Pl (I ride on Argyle every day to work) — they almost all use Givins St.” You are right that 70 cars won’t come out at once, but still, many cars will presumably be crossing Argyle during the period of time when children are walking to school. I live on Argyle St directly across from the laneway, and can testify that dozens of children and their families cross that laneway every morning. Isn’t that worth being concerned about?
Finally, the issue of the business ecology on Ossington is a subtle one. My feeling is that nearly all residents are cool with the fact that it gets a bit rowdy on Friday and Saturday nights—this is mainly contained to the strip. We don’t see how the introduction of residents of 86 small condos, which experts seem to think will mainly be occupied by young single professionals drawn to the nightlife etc.—at least this is how Reserve is marketing the properties—is supposed to be a force for decreasing, rather than increasing, the “barification” of the strip.
Thanks for reading and thinking.
Mitchell, Jessica got my point well, I think. I don’t take kindly to being treated as someone who just moved here for the bar scene, I’m afraid. Lots of us have lived down here before Ossington was on the (cultural) map, It’s important for people to know that the opposition is not limited solely to newcomers, as has been implied in a few media pieces.
Alex, thank you for your generous response. Cities are indeed the economic motors of the country, as Jane Jacobs notes. And they grow organically and haphazardly. Arguably, however, 109 Ossington is a form of quasi-government intervention, with the developer using a de facto zoning process to block-bust. Certainly the proposed development fits with neither the height nor architecture of the neighbourhood, so I don’t think it qualifies as “organic.”.It’s more an exercise in social engineering. Remember, the developer has been relying on a wholly notional street width to exceed existing height limits. What dominoes will fall next?
What’s organic? Well, not too long ago, many of the storefronts below Foxley were actually residences. As building owners saw the surge of commerce on Queen St. making its way past Crawford, where it had long been stalled, they made their storefronts available for new businesses, mostly galleries and restaurants. We already had enough bars. Anyone remember the Argyle Bar and Grill, and its next-door neighbour, the Army Navy Air Force Club?
Which raises another point. While it may not look like it on a Friday or Saturday night, this is in fact a family neighbourhood. I don’t see the development proposal making any concession to that. It assumes that Ossington only flourishes after dark. That impression needs to be corrected.
The point is that we can have good, family-friendly development within the existing bylaws. There’s no need to push the zoning envelope. We can have higher density and a robust neighbourhood without the need for WQW condos.
.
PS. I don’t think this argument is about Nimbyism. We’re not asking CAMH to pack up and move to Mississauga, after all. And I’m an avid fan of intensification. Let’s get rid of the noncontiguous teacher parking lots at Givins-Shaw and Senhor Santo Cristo. That would free up space for family-oriented townhouses. By building on the old Hesco parking lot facing Givins, Reserve Properties is actually doing the right thing, providing they get the scale right.
Anti-condo middle class people making their point by speaking for their ethnic neighbours. CHECK
One of them saying “This isn’t about NIMBYism – we just don’t need condos here, they go in somebody else’s neighbourhood, because I know the city is about density and change” CHECK Pro-city but anti-city at the same time.
Cars. Children. CHECK
Do these people in their little houses have no cars? I bet they have cars. Googled names in the Star. They teach in Scarborough. Do they use transit? I wouldn’t take that bet. What selfish view of the city.
Ossington for “us”. You can’t afford a whole single family home, then you can’t share in our dream.
J. Wilson — if you and your people wanted this placid, quiet neighbourhood, why didn’t you move to a ranch in Scarborough??? On a quiet street that won’t change for decades? You moved into the middle of the city. It’s like moving by the airport and complaining of planes.
Thank goodness you won’t win, the city will be diverse, and Layton will realize you’re a minority of privileged people who have the benefit of a middle class platform and let this used car lot become a place where people can live.
Hi Darlene,
Thanks for commenting on this important issue. Let me clarify a few points.
Various of your claims seem to suppose that we are “anti-condo”. We’re not—as I said above, we *want* condos on that site. A 4-story condo building that appropriately fits into the hood would be great, and infinitely better than the used-car lot. You and I are in complete agreement that that site should be a place where people can live. Following common sense and the Official Plan, we want density on our underdeveloped properties, but we want it to be appropriate unto the existing context.
As for speaking for our Portuguese neighbors: they are speaking for themselves; see the OMNI segment broadcast two nights ago. There were 40-50 of my Portuguese neighbors and friends, uniformly opposed to the development as it stands—though again, happy to have a 4-story condo—at the Community Consultation meeting.
Third, what’s wrong with pointing out negative impacts associated with children or cars? Shouldn’t we care about these things?
Fourth, for the record I personally don’t have a car, and use feet, bike, transit or taxis for all my travel. Though my preferred mode of existence is obviously sitting at a computer typing away, for better or worse.
As for Mike Layton: three cheers for him for getting a 2/3 majority and getting the Ossington Area Study passed now, rather than being deferred until a September vote!
There are no limits to heights and densities in the OP. Bedford believed the underlying zoning should remain as is and change only when it conflicted with what the OP intended. In this case there seems to be no conflict, which is why the locals are up in arms. Any property owner can apply for a re-zoning. The same for an Amendment to the OP. In adjudicating these ‘as of right’ requests reference is made to the OP, Secondary Plans, Policies and precedent. If approval for a similar application has been granted by either Council or the OMB, or both, this will weigh heavily in judgement. The OSA has a naive reliance on the OP and other policies given exactly how many holes have already been punched in each and every one, creating precedents I predict Council will not wish to battle again at the OMB. And, if you think what the local councillor achieved yesterday has any clout, you’re in for a big disappointment.
What’s sad about flare-ups like 109OZ is how few resources are available to residents. Residents are a big part of the Planning Act, the OP and City Policies. Yet, they’re nearly always the least equipped to participate in the “process”. There’s a game being played here and across the city. The players are councillor, planner, developer and resident. And, it’s ALL about negotiation. The planner is protected and hides behind ‘cut and paste’ Preliminary Reports, stringing out all players with apparent concerns and ‘issues to be resolved’. The planner works mostly for his boss, the local councillor, who may be ‘newbie’ or seasoned. Much discussion goes on between them that never sees the light of day.
The councillor hates ‘the process’ but keeps an eye on electoral pressure. If it gets too hot, there’s always hiding room behind the planner. If it’s good for votes, it might be worth a “study” or a fight. There’s always Section 37 monies to be had afterall. (I hear Adam Vaughan and Kristyn Wong Tam are sitting on great gobs of it, waiting for the “right” reason to spend.) The developer compiles the Planning Rationale Report, the Traffic Study, the Shadow Study, the Wind Study, and in doing so provides the planner with lots of material and cover. It’s a huge cost for the developer, something never lost in arguments at the OMB. The developer hires $1,000 an hour lawyers, planners and “experts”. They know what they’re doing and they work hard for their money, big bucks for everybody involved.
It’s always the same set-up at the OMB, some configuration or other of the key players. Sometimes it’s the councillor with the developer opposing the community and the planner. Sometimes it’s the community with the councillor opposing the planner and the developer. Sometimes the councillor, planner and developer against the community. On every occasion, it’s the smartest, hardworking team that wins.
I’ve just watched two days of Council Meetings. On the first day the morning was taken up with yet another discussion about the budgets of councillors. Whether they should be $30,000, or higher. Let’s assume there’s 44 councillors and a budget of $1.3 million. The total expenditure budget for the city is $10 billion. Look how much time was devoted to the minuscule amount of $8,000 per councillor. The afternoon was spent thrashing about, rehashing glory days and getting a lot of crap off chests. It’s a farce yet we fund it.
This is why the smart guys are winning. No other $10 billion entity operates this way, awash with gravy tucked behind a pile of red meat and poor management. It’s expensive Reality TV. So much time spent on trivia and political posturing, devoid of any true value for the common good. How many perilous issues are being ignored?
The development community is overwhelming Toronto. I say this because councillors have way too much say when it comes to planning decisions. Bad planning decisions are supported by councillors on a regular basis. The Planning Department is denied the opportunity to steward good planning.
Right now, we’re going through rapid change in the shape and size of where we live. Yet, the TO Planning Department is operating on such low esteem it can barely process the development applications on time (one good reason why the OMB should exist). They don’t challenge because they don’t have the budget, it’s one of the lowest at the City. They can’t be proactive or defend the OP because they don’t have the bodies. They can’t collaborate because it is a political minefield. Top dog is the councillor on a guaranteed good public salary and whose office budget just got increased. The developers are enjoying below market development charges and sucking $billions in profits out of thin air.
Low man on this totem pole is the apathetic resident, and the community-minded – the OneTaxpayer. It’s a farce and people get hurt, waste lots of their hard-earned money and usually depart the scene disillusioned never to participate again. Still, we call it inclusive democracy. Sad, eh?
Being at the community consultation meeting was REMARKABLY helpful. Despite the incredible rudeness of the opponents of this project, I (and many of my neighbours) were really pleased to hear the architect present the project in a very detailed way. I had been told this was a giant 20 storey building – it’s not – it’s SIX. Six stories in a downtown neighbourhood upsets people? I think a one way ticket to Newmarket might be in order..
What we concluded is this: it’s an elegant building (even the opponents largely agreed with this) and it’s utterly appropriate for the area. It upsets the homeowners immediately behind it because they don’t believe that people who don’t have $1M to buy a house on Givins shouldn’t have the chance to live in the area. And they seem to hate the fact that business people are going to profit from taking a risk on development.
Build it, Build it, Build it. Period.
@Scot: “Better act quickly, though, because hipsters are making those books hard to find. It’s precisely attitudes like yours that are forcing small businesses out of the neighbourhood, like Frantic City, a wonderful bookshop. The owner has no time for the party pseuds, who couldn’t read a book for the text of them”
The owner of Frantic City told me in person, and basically said the same thing to the Star, that this is a “fight amongst the middle class”. He’s not closing down because his rent increased, as you seem to imply. In fact, he told me his landlord has been good to keep his rent low. People just aren’t buying enough books to keep him in business.
It’s easy to put a label on a supposedly homogenous group, the “hipsters” and then ascribe all sorts of evil to them: they don’t read; they’re driving out local business by driving up rents, etc. I’m going to make an educated guess and say that these “hipsters” are mostly young, much less likely to have well-paying permanent jobs; very unlikely to own any property; and are renting in the numerous apartments in houses throughout downtown.
I’m no longer that young, but like the owner of Frantic City, I don’t own in the area. There isn’t much chance of me being able to buy in a walkable/bikeable part of Toronto. I have seen myself priced out of markets where I could hope to be car-free. I’d much rather live in a mid-rise building in an area like Ossington than squished into places like CityPlace, Liberty Village or somewhere far enough away from the NIMBY folks trying to protect their car-dependent “neighbourhoods”.
This whole fight reminds me of what I read about the recent history of Cabbagetown. When Cabbagetown became a place for the wealthy, it saw a big drop in density. All the boarding houses got converted into single family homes and pushed lower income people into other parts of the city. Is the same going to happen to places like Ossington? Hopefully developments like 109Oz will provide some buffer against that.
Darlene I think your comments and attacks against this group a harsh to say the very least. I’m one of those “ethnic neighbours” this groups represents. I’m Luso Canadian and lived in this neighbour for all my life… 36 years to be exact! I have 3 generations of family living in this neighbourhood and with each generation this project “as the way it is” will negatively impact their lives.
I have seen decades of change in this neighbourhood, a whole lot of bad and some good, but not once did community stand up. Why? Think about it and question why people didn’t speak up. Come down to our neighbourhood and one by one knock on these “ethnic” neighbours to listen to their stories and complaints. It’s all the same! They don’t feel like they have a voice and they are overpowered. Ask why?
I commend the community for bringing these people to the forefront to allow them to speak their minds and get their say and opinions across to the city councillors and developers. No one is saying “NO CONDOS, NO CHANGE!”….They are simply asking to speak about the issue and to be heard. I don’t see anything wrong with that! Communications and understanding is the key to any relationship and community. The developers and community need to form a positive relationship. Both need to work together to get the same goal…making Ossington better!
Patrick, excellent post!
Oh boy, I just received the OCA newsletter. I hope something like this doesn’t happen;
The Planning Department is jammed with planning stuff, short-staffed and under-funded. That area study might take a while to get done. Council will delay on a decision, awaiting the outcome of the study. The developer might not like that and head to the OMB, justified by the lack of timely response from the City. The City Solicitor will send the ‘B Team’ to defend. The developer will be able to demonstrate lots of public consultation and a well documented group within the community who support the building. The OMB will listen carefully to very expensive ’eminent experts’, it will be appraised of just how much things have cost the developer thus far and evidence of precedents. If the City doesn’t capitulate before or on the first day of the Hearing, a brave face will be put on matters when the OMB decides in favour of the developer. (“We tried, but that OMB is against us. It has to go!”) The study will identify other sites in the area, set limits on the heights and densities that will be allowed and the process will lstart over again in a very short while. Just as it happens all over this city.
The OCA would be better off negotiating hard from the get-go and stop relying on the councillor, planner or the OP. There’s a hidden agenda when it comes to intensification in Toronto. If you want to protect your neighbourhood – think Public Realm asap.
I would be curious to see what the Design Review Panel would have to say about this. After all, they deal with how buildings of this scale impact neighbourhoods all the time…though I think they’re principally dedicated to TCHC projects.
I live in the area, and I don’t have an adverse reaction to the proposal. I might even be looking forward to it. Wouldn’t it be great if this so called “over sized” retail space did something nice for the street life? What if Pizza Libretto moved into it so we didn’t have to wait in line? What if they had a street patio!!? With all the negativity seen at the community meeting, I think there’s a lot of positive things that folks are overlooking.
Hi Herb,
Thanks for your your thoughtful comment. But I want to correct a couple of impressions.
In fact, I talked to the owner of Frantic City that very day. Of course it’s not about the rent — I never stated nor implied that. But it is about the fact that he came into a somewhat downtrodden neighbourhood before it was trendy, got some business, but with all the increased foot traffic, no one is buying books (except for me and you, I guess). I asked him if he would relocate, because he does get very interesting books. He said what’s the point, move into another crappy neighbourhood, watch it become trendy and still no business.
I have, to my disappointment, watched many bookstores in the larger neighbourhood succumb to iTunes and Kindle: McBurney & Cutler, Book City, Abelard … I hope the Monkey’s Paw survives.
Also, I’m a lifelong tenant, not a homeowner. I wouldn’t dream of owning a condo, not with condo fees on top of property taxes. Many will disagree with me, but we have a housing bubble in Toronto, especially in the condo market. Given the average disposable income of a “hipster,” which I rather suspect is south of $50,000, who can afford even a “cheap” condo at $300,000? It might, of course be a good rental option, with the owner on the hook for the property taxes and perhaps the condo fees.
All it takes is a 1% rise in interest rates for the condo market to crash — as it did in the early 1990s. Even Jim Flaherty has noted that.
Who the “hipsters” are, I don’t really know. I have to work back from the demographic projected by the developer.I see a significant mismatch between target audience and money to hand. Also, mid-rise doesn’t necessarily mean affordable.And despite it being mid-rise, you might still find yourself being “squished” in.– squished in to a 600 sq ft condo — until you’ve paid the mortgage off 25 years later? (We need more financial literacy in this country!)
I think you’re half-wrong about Cabbagetown. You’ve left out St. Jamestown. And you’ve probably noted The Grid article on City Place and whether it will become the next St. Jamestown.http://www.thegridto.com/life/real-estate/is-cityplace-torontos-next-ghetto/ St. Jamestown promised higher density, but its target audience of swinging singles outgrew the place.Younger people are not likely to stay 25 years in one place.
Which brings us back to the merits of the project. What does a building with an eight-storey footprint — a glorified, albeit expensive dormitory –add to a three-storey neighbourhood?.Where are the condos for families? (I like Adam Vaughan’s suggestion that 10% of units should be for families) There is a way to do it right and keep it neat, instead of reaching for the sky.Four storeys will do quite nicely. Four-storeys for families, even better. Four storeys that are affordable for families would be best of all.
Cheers,
Scot
I’d like it if people started to talk about “people” instead of “families” — some family is good, work Adam Vaughan is doing to get condos to make larger family-sized units and etc (and Holyday’s ridiculous junk about not raising families downtown) — but it gets creepy when “family” is used as a kind of moral weight to argue against something. Not everybody is 1950s nuclear in the city, nor should they be, and they have equal rights to the city.
Can an argument be made against this proposal without saying family? To take this a bit further, the entire surrounding neighborhood, those houses, are family housing. Maybe ossington needs more Singletons living there to balance it out. To take it a bit further, the single family homes are out of the price range of a lot of singletons, so living in Ossington and owning is out of reach. This proposal may fix that.
I’m with Alex though – tweak the retail at the bottom so it won’t be a mega-store (or maybe not) and maybe get a few bigger units in there….make the proposal better….but 6 stories, or 8 even, to use the single-home-owner’s hyperbole, is perfect for Ossington & will compliment CAMH just down the way.
See: Paris, London, Prague, Greenwich Village….etc….good neighborhoods thrive at 6-8 storeys (with single family homes adjacent in London and NYC). Ossington can and will too.
Actually Shawn, if you pay any attention at all to places like “Paris, London, Prague, Greenwich Village”, etc., you’ll know that all of these places thrive because they have strict zoning regulations and major zoning exemptions are rarely granted. Obviously the best way to make a quick buck in a 6-story neighbourhood would be to buy a place, knock it down, and build a 20-story building. But these cities don’t permit it. That’s why those neighbourhoods thrive.
The approach being advocated by Spacing in this article and comments – who cares what the city wants, let the developers build tenement apartments as high as they like – is the precise, direct opposite of that.
Actually, if you pay any attention at all to places like “Paris, London, Prague, Greenwich Village”, etc., you’ll know that all of these places thrive because they have strict zoning regulations and major zoning exemptions are rarely granted. Obviously the best way to make a quick buck in a 6-story neighbourhood would be to buy a place, knock it down, and build a 20-story building. But these cities don’t permit it. That’s why those neighbourhoods thrive.
The approach being advocated by Spacing in this article and comments – who cares what the city wants, let the developers build tenement apartments as high as they like – is the precise, direct opposite of that.
There’s nothing sinister about a community wanting some say in how it is planned – even to the extent of wanting family-sized dwellings.
Recording existing character and how the community views infill development, I wish the TO Community Planning Department could deliver. I always think of that as a fair return for funding it. My experience has been that communities and community associations are a pain in the arse for TO Planners. Invariably, this abandonment and subsequent frustration gives rise to the pejorative use of NIMBY, middle class, hipster, etc. When it comes to planning, communities have few friends.
There’s Traffic Studies, Shadow Studies, Wind Studies, etc., but never a Community Study. Who thinks for the community? Wouldn’t it be great if we could get every community to write its Character Statement and update it as often as we update the OP?
However, that would require somebody at the City to have the balls to stand up to the development community. (Their Development Charges are 5 years old now but try buying a condo at 2007 prices.) Not on the horizon, I’m afraid. The development community pays for re-election campaigns and a whole lot of print/media advertising. It can do amazing things with the OP and City Policies.
J. Wilson:
In your first comment you write:
“the introduction of midrise development in this low-rise, closely packed neighborhood will have clearly destabilizing negative impacts on the business, residential, and school communities in this presently wonderful and distinctive area of the City.” You suggest we read this pdf to understand the impacts, but it’s 74pp (!). Could you summarize your argument? Specifically, how does a mid-rise have “destabilizing negative impacts,” and what do you mean by “impacts”?
I also find it hard to accept when you argue that it’s ‘just’ a “restaurant row” (“a distinctive strip”), when it only has been so for a few years – and not without opposition. And yet you’re worried about “barification.”
In another comment you write: “we want condos on that spot!” then refer to the OP and, previously, to how Oss is part of this “75%.” If Oss is part of the “75%,” and you’re relying on the OP for your arguments, then how can you say you want condos? Doesn’t this go against the point of “protecting” this “75%” from further intensification?
Later you write:
“A 4-story condo building that appropriately fits into the hood would be great.” So, how is it that you feel a 4 story condo building would be “great” in light of your first comment I quote about a mid-rise having a “destabalizing impact”? How is it that a 4-story condo would be great, but a 6-story would have such negative consequences? What happens with these two extra floors?
Che vuoi? You’re saying all these things, but what do you really want?
The road-width arguments seem, to me, misplaced. This is about cars, right, and assuming all condo dwellers will have a car? Here, it’s a matter of design details. The underground lot should be smaller. Similarly, I’m with you on the ‘corridor’ apartments and there should be smaller retail spaces on the ground floor (and not two floors). If anyone’s wondering why this minor detail is important, have a look at the new condo on Queen at Portland, or at Bedford and Bloor.
If Jacobs is being thrown around, we might do well to remember her “preferred” density (Chapter 11 of Death and Life): *at minimum* 100 *dwellings* per acre. What’s the Ossington area have? 3? It can’t even be 10!
ps. Twitter is cool – sign up! @markjull
No Michael, am looking at examples of adult cities. But if you don’t want to address any of my points (or what “spacing is advocating”) you are free to opt out of the discussion. Make an evidence-based point & I’ll address. As will others. XO
Since the recent, and similarly controversial, Queen E and Roncesvalles mid-rise condo projects have been mentioned, I thought I would just clarify that the recent Roncesvalles project was actually on Howard Park, which is not an “avenue” under the Master Plan either. Queen East is an avenue, but the stretch where the Beach project was proposed had somehow been given an exemption. Both projects were approved anyway. And in the case of the Queen E condo in the Beach, the project was enthusiastically approved by the City, despite loud opposition from residents.
This is the political terrain upon which this question will be decided.
I fear the OCA is missing an opportunity to negotiate some meaningful improvements, and is instead basing its opposition on a naive interpretation of the Master Plan and the degree to which it is supposed to bind City decision-makers. The Master Plan is not like a constitution, existing to protect residents’ rights. It is a starting point for decision-making and nothing more.
I think it is also important to remember that the Master Plan is not intended to show what is “allowed” and what is “forbidden” in a given area. It exists to show where certain projects can be built “as of right” vs. where the projects require permission and negotiation with the City.The fact is, it is perfectly legal to build anything anywhere, if you can negotiate terms that the City will agree to. It’s through negotiation that the City, and hopefully the community, will seek to ensure that the Ossington project serves the need for growth while suiting the location and hopefully benefiting the community.
The OCA may think it is negotiating when it says “4 storeys, not 6,” but this presumes that the City is seeking to accommodate growth within the needs of existing residents. It is not. In fact, it is the other way around. The City wants and needs intensification if it hopes to accommodate the 500,000 or so people seeking to move to Toronto over the next few decades. The alternatives to intensification are to either force less wealthy people out of Toronto, or to pave over more farmland. The OCA needs to understand that from the City’s perspective, the question is not how to maximize protection for existing neighbourhoods while allowing some growth, but how to maximize growth without destroying existing neighbourhoods.
Any opposition effort that is premised around the belief that the City should limit growth only to what existing residents will accept is a losing proposition.
There are ways for residents to harness the economics of growth in their favour. One of Ossington’s biggest challenges right now is its transformation from a street with industrial uses (auto garages, warehouses, etc.) into a mature and vibrant main street with daytime foot traffic. I would urge the OCA to find ways of channelling developer resources towards this goal. I understand that developers prefer not to fuss with ground-floor retail, which is perhaps why the Ossington developer is trying to keep things simple with a single retail tenant. The community should insist on smaller storefronts that would make the emergence of daytime cafes, groceries, bakeries, and other “first order” businesses more likely.
And I would especially urge development critics to properly understand the political, legal and economic realities here as they rightly assert their interests. They are not living in 1970s Toronto, where unfocussed residential rage might have once persuaded decision-makers to ignore the need for responsible growth in this city. Ossington residents must not miss their opportunity to negotiate meaningful improvements to the development and benefits for their community and main street.
Amsterdam has plenty of streets much narrower than Ossington with many 6+ story buildings. See this video: http://schlijper.nl/120710-00-amsterdam-city-center-tour.photo
Doesn’t seem to have hurt Amsterdam. Quite the contrary.
Funnily almost all the designated avenues are east/west in the OP. Almost all of the north/south are not included, including Ossington and streets like Dufferin. I can’t imagine anyone fighting to keep the nice “neighbourly” feel of Dufferin. My guess is that streets like Dufferin weren’t included simply because there currently exist lots of single detached houses, and not because it wouldn’t be a good street to turn into street level retail with housing on top.
@Scot. So the books and “hipsters can’t read” sidetrack has really nothing to do with this.
What I mean by “squished” is this Toronto phenomenon of trying to “protect” single family detached housing by fighting mid-rise buildings like this, thus forcing most of the intensification into places like CityPlace. I’d much prefer to live in a 600 square feet condo in an area where I currently live – not far from Ossington – then have to move down next to the Gardiner.
So let’s bring a bit of Amsterdam (and London, Paris) to Ossington.
Alex, Shawn – for two people who literally started this discussion by talking about the residents here as being “whiny” (Bozikovic on Twitter, July 12) “selfish NIMBYs” (Bozikovic in the article above)… you seem astonishingly thin-skinned about criticism. In my experience this usually happens when people find themselves making a terrible argument but don’t want to back down from it; they become defensive and rude.
Ossington currently has about 5-6 major parcels ready for redevelopment, not counting the three major projects underway. Five years from now, it will either be a decent place to live, with nice street life and a good feel to it, or it will look a lot like King West – disconnected condo towers looming over a vacant, barren streetscape. The City Council, city planners, and residents are all on the side of the former. Developers, and Spacing, are on the side of the latter. You may have chosen the wrong side here. Proper thing to do here is not to be defensive but to reconsider.
No thin skin Michael, just asking to debate real things. And we’ve signed our full names to everything we’ve said.
Michael – you are right, Ossington in a few years will be a different place, and likely a much more exciting and engaging place to live. For everyone – not just people who can afford $1M run-down homes on the side streets, but also for people who love the hood, want to live here, and can only afford a 1 bedroom. My neighbour’s son is buying a place here, because otherwise his only option would be to rent, and he’s a really smart young man who wants to own real estate. His parents have made a fortune (I suppose) and bought really close to the street 25 years ago, and now he wants to put his feet into real estate as well.
You must be looking at another building somewhere – 109 Oss isn’t a tower?? it’s bloody 6 stories. Spend some time in some great cities, and you will see why these buildings are EXACTLY what’s going to make Ossington more than just an evening destination.
Build it!
@John. Great post. Fully agree.
What are the options for those who don’t support this project? Start negotiating now, I think. Add more, smaller retail options. Ask the developer to add silva cells under the sidewalk so that the trees that will be planted will actually have a chance to grow (like what was done on Bloor St in Yorkville). Ensure the quality of building materials are good – actual brick, no cheap Tridel-style spandrel, etc.
The proposal looks great in that is already has stepbacks, a green roof, and parking access on Argyle (not on Ossington – moving a garage entrance away from the main street already improves the pedestrian experience here).
At least the residents here and facing a superbeast like downtowners are with 501 Yonge (see: http://501yonge.ca/ or http://www.toronto.ca/planning/501yongestreet.htm)
That last sentence should read: At least the residents here aren’t facing a superbeast like downtowners are with 501 Yonge.
Interesting comments, all. Here I’ll respond to Mark Jull’s good questions.
First, in re the research document I have been directing people to at t http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context, it’s a power-point slide presentation, saved in .pdf format. You could read it in 5 minutes or less.
But since you asked, here is a summary of the destabilizing negative impacts that mid-rise development would have on the Ossington business, residential, and school communities:
(1) the Ossington business community: loss of distinctive character that makes Ossington a destination district, chain retail threatening local small business
(2) the residential community: looming over and shadowing of dozens of
homes, balconies up to 70ft bringing noise and privacy intrusions, typically
small units means transient population, doubling of cars and trucks on
laneways and side streets
(3) the school communities: serious safety concerns about 70+ cars and trucks crossing paths of children and families walking to Givins-Shaw and Santo Christo schools, increased traffic around playgrounds, balconies up to 70 ft up raising concerns about overlook
You say: “I also find it hard to accept when you argue that it’s ‘just’ a “restaurant row” (“a distinctive strip”), when it only has been so for a few years – and not without opposition. And yet you’re worried about “barification.”
Well, I never said that the strip was “just” a restaurant row; if you’ll reread my comments (search on “restaurant row” you’ll see I also say that it is more generally an eclectic destination district, which includes the bar scene, of course. I’m personally not that worried about barification; in my reference to this above I was just pointing out, in response to a previous commenter, that it not likely that the introduction of 86+ members the demographic to which Reserve is marketing would work to decrease “barification”. I also noted that I don’t think that most residents are that put out by the buzz on Friday and Saturday nights, so long as it stays on the strip. So I don’t think there’s any tension in my position here.
You say: “In another comment you write: “we want condos on that spot!” then refer to the OP and, previously, to how Oss is part of this “75%.” If Oss is part of the “75%,” and you’re relying on the OP for your arguments, then how can you say you want condos? Doesn’t this go against the point of “protecting” this “75%” from further intensification?
This is an important question, so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify. The 25% is where *significant* intensification is supposed to occur. The 75% is not supposed to be protected from any development whatsoever—that would be kooky, of course. The primary issue to which the OP directs attention is the question: look, given that we need to step up the growth in order to accommodate future residents, where should this intensive growth, where development may significantly exceed the existing bylaws, involving midrise and higher development, occur? Our position is that—as seems incontrovertible—that the OP does not include Ossington among the areas for which significant intensification is (as the head of Urban Design said, “permitted”) to occur, which is of course compatible with growth occurring on Ossington.
Indeed, as we have been saying all along, there is a huge amount of room for growth on Ossington that falls within the existing by-law limits, which allow up to 4 stories along Ossington. My conservative estimate is that we could triple the density on Ossington within existing limits: we have not outgrown the bylaws. So that’s why we would be happy to see a 4-story condo in the Reserve lands space. Again, there’s no tension in my position.
You say “The road-width arguments seem, to me, misplaced. This is about cars, right, and assuming all condo dwellers will have a car? ”
Well, the road-width arguments pertain in the first instance to the question of whether Ossington is an “Avenue”: a broad, long retail and transportation corridor like King, Queen, Dundas, Bloor, Eglinton, etc. The minimum street right-of-way for an Avenue is 20m; but Ossington is (I measured) only 17.5m building to building. So it is 8 feet too narrow to be an Avenue; moreover it is too short qua retail corridor (only 600m), and carries almost no through-traffic. So not only is it not one of the Official Plan designated Avenues, it is nothing like an Avenue.
There is another road-width issue, however, that does pertain to cars: namely, the fact that the proposal wants to turn narrow Argyle Place into a driveway for the 70-car underground parking garage and surface spaces. Argyle Place is only 16ft wide at the mouth—too narrow to allow easy access to cars and trucks of the sort that would service the building and its retail center. The preliminary report says that Argyle Place would need to be “widened”, but how? Brick buildings (that Reserve doesn’t own) abut the narrow entrance.
You say “If Jacobs is being thrown around, we might do well to remember her “preferred” density (Chapter 11 of Death and Life): *at minimum* 100 *dwellings* per acre. What’s the Ossington area have? 3? It can’t even be 10!”
Actually, if you do the math you will see that we are close to the mark along Ossington as is, and definitely would be if we added a few 4-story condos. An acre is 200x200ft; the average lot size on Ossington is about 20x50ft, so that’s 40 lots per acre. Most of the buildings on Ossington have at least one floor of residential units above the storefront, so if you have 2 dwellings per building we’re up to 80 and if there are 3 we’re up to 120 per acre. Putting a few 4 story condos on Ossington would easily exceed the desired 100 dwellings per acre. In particular, if Reserve built to as-of-right on the lands in question, with 2 units per floor per 20-ft width, then for each 20-ft parcel they would add 6 dwellings; there are about 8 of these widths so they would add 45-48 dwellings in just 8 of the 40 “average” lots making up an acre.
So I think we’re good to go here, too!
And thanks, yes, I’ve joined Twitter!
I’ll now respond the important issues raised by John, above.
John, you say, “I thought I would just clarify that the recent Roncesvalles project was actually on Howard Park, which is not an “avenue” under the Master Plan either. Queen East is an avenue, but the stretch where the Beach project was proposed had somehow been given an exemption. Both projects were approved anyway. And in the case of the Queen E condo in the Beach, the project was enthusiastically approved by the City, despite loud opposition from residents. This is the political terrain upon which this question will be decided.”
In re Queen E: their area had been designated a “character area”; this is supposed to be protective, but does not officially constitute an “exemption” from the direction provided by the Official Plan for intensive growth to occur on Avenues. If you look at the Google map of the Lick’s location, you can see that it is nowhere closely abutted by residential homes—it’s a big lot with tons of parking:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=queen+east+licks&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&ei=nzADUPrbEsns0gHAi_m7Bw&ved=0CKIEEPwFKAI
So midrise development there would not negatively impact residential homes in the way that 109OZ would do, introducing severe shadowing and overlook to literally dozens of homes which are perpendicularly situated relative to the 151ft-wide site. Queen is also 4 driving lanes and a streetcar in that area and so really does satisfy the criteria for being an Avenue. So these considerations trumped the character area designation—perhaps rightly, in my view. (It’s also worth noting that the Lick’s development is only 1/3 the size of the 109OZ development, so the negative impacts are much less in that case than they would in our case.)
Similar considerations show that the Howard Park approval makes sense. Look at the Google map of the site:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=30+Howard+Park&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&ei=HDIDUML2Gcrw0gHwiMDtBw&ved=0CPgDEPwFKAI
Again, it’s situated in an area which has no abutting residences! The situation with 109OZ is completely different:
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=109+Ossington&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&ie=UTF-8&ei=vjIDUKzaN6230AGgnfzqBw&ved=0CJ4EEPwFKAI
So, I think it is not just the political terrain but existing differences in physical terrain that will most crucially enter into deciding the issue.
You say, “it is also important to remember that the Master Plan is not intended to show what is “allowed” and what is “forbidden” in a given area. It exists to show where certain projects can be built “as of right” vs. where the projects require permission and negotiation with the City.”
Well, that’s not quite right. The zoning laws set what can be built “as of right”, not the Official Plan, which does not set definite heights, densities, or etc. What the Official Plan does is say to the Planners and the City: here’s where you should “permit”—again, those are the very words of the head of Urban Design in commenting on this issue—significant intensification. But even so, this doesn’t happen “as of right”: the developers still have to get permission from and negotiate with the City, at least in the majority of parts of the City for which the Area and Avenue studies (which are supposed to officially set allowable heights and densities) have not yet been done.
You say, “The OCA may think it is negotiating when it says “4 storeys, not 6,” but this presumes that the City is seeking to accommodate growth within the needs of existing residents. It is not. In fact, it is the other way around. The City wants and needs intensification if it hopes to accommodate the 500,000 or so people seeking to move to Toronto over the next few decades. The alternatives to intensification are to either force less wealthy people out of Toronto, or to pave over more farmland. The OCA needs to understand that from the City’s perspective, the question is not how to maximize protection for existing neighbourhoods while allowing some growth, but how to maximize growth without destroying existing neighbourhoods.”
We are not “negotiating” at this point; we are stating the facts as we see them, and expressing what we want on that site. The application for the site was just complete a week ago; the process is barely beginning.
Speaking of negotiation, Shane Fenton said recently that he is “not going to budge” on the height. We say, huh? You’re asking for exemptions from us—from our City, from our communities—that would effectively convert Ossington from lowrise to midrise, in such a way as to incur destabilizing negative impacts on our business, residential, and school communities. And for what end? To prevent the destruction of farmland or force everyone but the wealthy out of the City? Come on. There are plenty of places where midrise and higher development can occur without inducing these destabilizing negative impacts—to be found among the parts of the city falling under the 4 categories identified in the Official Plan. Moreover, by building to 4 stories across 8 lots we would go from, what, 4 dwellings to 48, increasing the existing density on the site in question by 10 times or more!
No, let’s be honest: Reserve, with the help of RAW, is trying to fit as many units as possible in that space, not with the grand aim of increasing affordable housing (in absolute, not relative terms: at 570./square foot, not to mention 500+ monthly condo fees, those tiny condos are outrageously expensive), but so as to increase their profit margins. As Councillor Doucette said: the developers are in it to make as much money as they can, and they tell her so themselves.
Anyway, I don’t think we need to quibble about whether it is the need for growth or the need to protect existing communities that is primarily driving the Official Plan. It seems perfectly clear, to me, anyway, that the Official Plan aims to do both! And it can do both, by building to as-of-right on Ossington, and limiting midrise and higher development to areas of the City that can sustain such larger buildings.
You say, “Any opposition effort that is premised around the belief that the City should limit growth only to what existing residents will accept is a losing proposition.”
We certainly haven’t been saying that. Our arguments are based not on what we will or will not accept, but on the Official Plan, on Ossington’s status as not among the areas to which the Official Plan directs significant intensification, on the clear destabilizing negative impacts to our business, residential, and school communities that will be incurred if midrise or higher intensification occurs on Ossington, and on the fact that a really huge amount of growth can occur on Ossington, consonant with a general desire for growth in Toronto, and without incurring hardly any negative impacts.
Really, what’s not to like—to endorse—about our position? It conforms beautifully to common sense, basic principles of proper planning, the Official Plan. Grow but protect: our vision for the lands does this, Reserve’s does not.
Finally, you say, “The community should insist on smaller storefronts that would make the emergence of daytime cafes, groceries, bakeries, and other “first order” businesses more likely.”
I couldn’t agree with you more. We will certainly be pushing for this as hard as we can.
Thanks again for your excellent remarks.
Sorry, some of those google map links didn’t transfer correctly, but y’all can pick those up yourselves by google mapping
2034 Queen St E, Toronto, ON
30 Howard Park Ave, Toronto, ON
109 Ossington Ave, Toronto, ON
Some remarks on Shawn M’s intriguing post.
* Concerning worries about too much family talk. I totally understand: the problems with the application are problems for everyone, families and singletons alike, and it’s certainly a mistake to conclude that there is some sort of divide, where the singletons like the building and the families don’t.
* Is the entire neighbourhood family housing? No, its more of a mix. Households on my block include: six to eight apartments worth of singles or couples; three two-parent 2+-kid households; two older couples; a two-parent two-kid with two aged moms; two couples without kids; a sort of ‘collective’; a four-generation household; and a mom+kid.
* Are the houses too expensive for singletons? Well, the monthly cost on the 720 sf condos is in the ballpark of $2500 a month (including, if I have heard correctly, a $500 condo fee). That is the price of a $512K house. There are no houses that cheap in the area, of course. But with a bit of creativity, you can rope in a friend and buy a $900K house, drop $100K into reno, and divide it in two apartments. For that you get 1K sf each and a yard, and after 25 years no more condo fees. Also, if you get the condo, 720 sf in a party building is going to last what, 3–4 years before you need to move out? That means you have to unload a $574/sf condo in 2015–16. People keep talking about the imminent “condo crash”: if they’re right, then those buyers end up under water.
Moreover, there are plenty of apartments to be had for cheaper. Why would a singleton want to spend $2500 a month on housing? Seems crazy.
Finally, go ahead and build lowrise apartments on Ossington, OCA is delighted with that proposal. Cheaper per-unit construction costs with lowrise means greater affordability.
(We make these points at http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context — a veritable treasure trove of information and arguments that would doubtless be of considerable interest to all the serious urbanism geeks hanging out on this thread.)
* Shawn says eight stories would be perfect. An intriguing assertion. I have long found Shawn to be one of the most sensitive and creative commentators on Toronto’s streetscapes, so I am quite interested to hear his reasons for this.
* Shawn suggests that the proposal would make Ossington just a little bit more like Paris and London. Shawn is in excellent company in propounding this interesting idea, which I have heard also from the guy who designed the Opera House and various City Hall insiders. The idea deserves extensive commentary.
1. This is of course an idea the Planning Department has never found overwhelmingly compelling: over two iterations of the OP now Ossington has been in the region of areas protected from intensification.
2. Paris and London are replete in wonderful public squares: areas where commerce mixes with open sky. There are no public squares in Toronto, so we have had to jerry-rig the public square function into more linear spaces: Ossington is one of these, as the Planning Department recognizes in its characterization of Ossington as a destination rather than a thoroughfare. A linear space towered over by midrise is not a public square, which is why Paris and London have not only streets flanked by MR but also pubic squares. For the feel of a public square, it is necessary to see the sky. One might reasonably imagine building MR on Ossington would impede its public square function.
3. Plenty of streets in TO are slated for MR. Why not allow for some diversity and surprise? Shawn is elsewhere a great celebrater of the strange, the peculiar, the non-quotidian. I am surprised to see him in this forum arguing that Ossington, one of TO’s weirder places, should be homogenized in with the (in my view, entirely tedious) trend toward MR.
4. Paris and London are beautiful because they were built in the 19th century, largely by handicraft, in a period in which the public sphere was authentically valued. Contemporary MR is tedious and crushing because it is built with entirely capital-intensive techniques in a period in which the private sphere is hypervalorized, no matter what gestures of rhetoric or marketing may be made to the contrary.
5. Paris and London MR apartments are very large, and their structures contain extensive interior air- and light-space. This makes them wonderful, highly prized places held in families for generations. The proposal is for an airless, lightless cube sliced into as many weensy bits as the Ontario Building Code will legally permit. This is housing for a market in which it is imperative to move every four or five years.
6. Shawn declares that Ossington will thrive on MR, just as London and Paris have. I suggest that Shawn should visit King and Shaw to get a sense of what his idealized Ossington, with all the buildings torn down and replaced by gleaming MR, would be like.
7. Shawn is entirely dismissive of the — let’s get real now — entirely obvious gross offenses this building would do to the surrounding neighbourhood. I would imagine that an urbanist with an exquisitely sensitive eye for the details of localities might be rather more sensitive to the (straightforward, uncontroversial, uncontroverted, head-slappingly obvious) depredations of which the neighbours warn. Shawn’s position is not easily distinguished from the “we the wise ones know better than the fearful reflexively conservative parochial residents” sort of position I associate with Robert Moses, Corbusier, and other ambitious mid-century city designers.
And it may be worth pointing out that, thanks to the popularizing efforts of Shawn and others on behalf of wise Jacobs-style second-wave urbanism, the public Shawn dismisses might be expected to include many people who are entirely savvy on what makes for a good city.
Would the OCA be willing to sketch or draw their ideas (plans, elevations, typical suite typologies… maybe even a rough rendering?) so that we may better understand the association’s idea of what should be on that site? This might be accomplished by enlisting the assistance of some local design professionals – there are two architecture firms and a landscape architect on Ossington, by my count.
@J WILSON: You certainly don’t have to convince me of anything. It’s not up to me.
But you must agree you would be in a better position if this had not morphed into a typical NIMBY narrative, where “selfish” residents are portrayed as the enemies of inevitable change. Yet this narrative was predictable, helped along by opposition flyers that described this development proposal as predatory if not criminal.
Activists need to understand the difference between asserting “rights” and asserting “interests.” When one’s rights are being violated, rage and provocation may awaken the public’s conscience. But such rage, when used simply as a way of getting what you want, is less effective and can be counter-productive.
The Official Plan is a statement of baseline planning principles, and not a Bill of Rights for residents. If your citations of the OP correctly identify poor planning outcomes with 109OZ, then a good planner will no doubt agree with all your arguments, and demand improvements from the developer. If you have expressed a proper balance between the need for growth and the need to protect, then Cllr. Layton will no doubt urge that this balance be restored in the development proposal.
But if you have confused your own interests with objective planning principles, if you have made false assumptions about the economics of development and how easy it should be to satisfy your demands, or if you are mistaken in your belief that the flaws of this development are obvious to all but the greedy and ideological, then you may find your hard stance has alienated potential supporters and cost you an opportunity to seek changes from the developer when it was still in his interest to do so, losing a chance to truly assert your interests.
Shawn, you seem to be ignoring that there are many places in the neighbourhood for singletons (and I’m one myself.). They are the second and third storeys of buildings on Ossington and Dundas.I’m not sure how a condo building is going to make the neighbourhood more affordable for singletons –. unless investors buy most of the units in order to rent them out. Disagree?
As I’ve intimated before, condo prices in Toronto are inflated.The historical income-to-house-price ratio in Canada is 3.5 to 4.5 times annual earnings. It has recently gotten as high as 8 times annual salaries. I find this very scary.I lived through the condo/housing wreck of 1989-1999. (Yes, it took you that long to get your equity to match your initial capital outlay.)
To underline the point: condos are not affordable housing, at least not directly. And to suggest to people that owning a condo is better than renting, I would submit, is really bad financial advice.
So let’s move on from that point.This debate is really not about the forces of Nimbyism versus the proponents of housing for singletons.
It’s about getting the urban form right. The building does not fit the scale of Ossington. Walk a bit north Shawn, and see how the yellow-brick building built in the late 1980s nicely compliments the building where the Lakeview Restaurant is located. Look at the southeast corner of Dundas and Ossington, where CIBC rebuilt its bank branch in the later 1980s/early 1990s. Notice how both buildings are respectul of the neighbourhood’s shape.They don’t try to intimidate it.
I can’t say the same of 109 Ossington.
It might fit on WQW; Curiously, WQW developers are not building that high, and conform to exiting historical height lines … until you get to the railway tracks separating WQW from Parkdale.
Sorry, exiting = existing.
Ms. Wilson,
I am not going to comment on the subjective part of this debate (i.e., how high is too high and how dense is too dense, or what is distinctive and so on), as I found that complete futile. But I am kind of sensitive to numbers, so when people start throwing those things around I cannot help myself:
on the 100 DUA thingy:
You mentioned the typical lot on Ossington is 20×50, really? Last time I checked, typical city lots are more like 20×120, and it appears to me that the depth of lot that oz109 sits on is in line with 120 ft. In any case, the 50ft depth number does not make any sense in your subsequent arguments: double-loaded apts in a 50ft deep lot? So your calculation is already 60% off the mark for the starting point.
Moreover, the density Jacobs mentioned is the average of the whole neighbourhood, not the density on one residential lot of the most dense street! That means you have to take all the streets, laneways, parks, stores and schools which are not residential lot into account, and also you single family 20×120 lots as well. That means to, for you to continue enjoy the your large yard and neighbourhood amenities and still reach the density goal set by Jacobs, the main street of your neighbourhood has to get really really dense, so dense that even if it is lined with 109oz, it is still not nearly enough. You will probably have to line CityPlace up along Ossington to get 100DUA. Why? Jacobs did not envision a neighbourhood of large single family houses surrounded by a ring of MR buildings. She was envisioning more compact dwelling throughout the neighbourhood. So please stop saying the 4-storey is more than enough density for Jacobs’ like.
Look, I am not holding Jacobs’s number as holy bible and am not insisting the Ossington must meet that magic 100 DUA number (it simply cannot and won’t). After all, she settled pretty happily in Annex which is also far below 100DUA. But if you play the number game, play it right, both in terms of the numbers themselves, and what those numbers mean.
@Herb As Frantic City’s owner has posted”Unreliably Ossington.”
Here is how we will fund transit in Toronto! We will levy a fee every time an enlightened resident says, “Of course I understand that the city has to grow. Just not *here*.”
I know I said it earlier in the thread, but I’ll say it again. This so-called community association does not speak for me or most of my neighbours, or the businesses. Those in the group need to stop using terminology that implies a majority. I applaud their right to speak, but speak for themselves, not those who don’t agree.
I’d like now to respond to John, whose second point is especially interesting.
John, you say “But you must agree you would be in a better position if this had not morphed into a typical NIMBY narrative, where “selfish” residents are portrayed as the enemies of inevitable change. Yet this narrative was predictable, helped along by opposition flyers that described this development proposal as predatory if not criminal.” Activists need to understand the difference between asserting “rights” and asserting “interests.” When one’s rights are being violated, rage and provocation may awaken the public’s conscience. But such rage, when used simply as a way of getting what you want, is less effective and can be counter-productive.”
John, to be honest, as regards your first point I have no idea what you are talking about. I don’t see any rage or anger or NIMBYism on this thread, or in the opinions of my friends and associated in the Ossington business, residential, and school communities. Nor has their been any discussion of “rights”. I would appreciate it if you and others took care to learn and to process the details and nuances of our position, most explicitly discussed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context. Again, this is a power-point slide presentation, saved in .pdf format; you can read it in 5 minutes or less.
Of course, the fact that there were so many members of the Ossington community protesting the proposal at the Community Consultation meeting that the City had to move the meeting to the gym—which situation the developers used to give their shpiels twice over, leaving less than 45 minutes for the 300-600 (estimates vary; the truth probably lies somewhere in between) residents to express their ovewhelmingly negative opinion—made a couple of people a bit irate. So what? That’s to be expected in any large crowd, after all. The vast majority of people expressing their opinions (who, with a couple of exceptions, were universally against the proposal) were exceedingly restrained, given the extent of damage that Reserve Properties, assisted by RAW, is proposing. There’s video evidence of this; CBC/CityTV filmed it.
On the contrary, we are calm and sure of our position. We see clearly the destabilizing negative impacts of cramming midrise development onto Ossington, contrary to the stated position of the Official Plan according to which Ossington is not to be subject to such development, either in law or in fact; and also contrary to common sense, our (as yet not-nearly-outgrown bylaws), and the obvious fact that Ossington is a wonderful pedestrian open-sky intimate artisanal low-key low-rise destination district, which would be totally crashed by the introduction of an effectively-8-story, 1/3 block long big-box King West style condo with currently planned AAA chain retail.
John, your third point is that “But if you have confused your own interests with objective planning principles, if you have made false assumptions about the economics of development and how easy it should be to satisfy your demands, or if you are mistaken in your belief that the flaws of this development are obvious to all but the greedy and ideological, then you may find your hard stance has alienated potential supporters and cost you an opportunity to seek changes from the developer when it was still in his interest to do so, losing a chance to truly assert your interests.”
Again, John, I have no idea what you are talking about. We assume that everyone who is involved with this project hopes the best for Toronto. Who among us wants to see Ossington turned into a branch of King West? Do the Spacing people—do you—really want that? I really hope not, and I have—perhaps wrongly or naively—faith that everyone who wants what is best for Toronto will also want what is best for Ossington.
We don’t feel alienated from anyone, no matter what their present opinion. I am a philosopher, and I am used to changing my mind in response to good arguments—that’s called being rational. And I have faith and confidence that even those who may initially be inclined to think we are NIMBYists or that we are insensitive to Toronto’s need to grow or that we are uninformed about Toronto’s planning structure or that we are unaware of Jacobs-based sound planning principles will have ears open to hear us, to realize the strength of our position, as properly informed and sound by the lights of both law, common sense, and proper consideration for the members of the several communities that would obviously be seriously negatively impacted by the proposal.
Now to your excellent second point. You say, “The Official Plan is a statement of baseline planning principles, and not a Bill of Rights for residents. If your citations of the OP correctly identify poor planning outcomes with 109OZ, then a good planner will no doubt agree with all your arguments, and demand improvements from the developer. If you have expressed a proper balance between the need for growth and the need to protect, then Cllr. Layton will no doubt urge that this balance be restored in the development proposal.”
John, here I could not agree with you more. This is as succinct a statement of the present situation as anyone has written. We completely agree with you that the Official Plan is a statement of baseline planning principles; and we have said in some detail why we think those principles, both in general and in specific terms, support our initiative, and associated petition, to Keep Ossington Lowrise, available to sign here:
ipetitions.com/petition/keep-ossington-lowrise
Hi Yu,
My understanding of the sort of density Jacobs had in mind is that it pertains to residences with ground floor retail, but in any case as regards how much density is optimal for City living, common sense should be the arbiter ]
As for Ossington: For lots that are classified as “deep”, like the Reserve property lands, more density could presumably be expected. That doesn’t translate as twice the density, since negative impacts on closely situated residences have to be considered (though a few more dwellings might be expected for a long lot). In any case, the baseline point remains: we’re already more or less at preferred Jane Jacobs density, and building within 4-story as-of-right would likely put us considerable over her directed minimum.
Allow me to pipe in and award Benj the “Most Condescending Series of Comments” award. What sneering. Good luck with you cause.
Thank your kindly, Jenn. I shall scourge them with the lash of hudibrastic!
Alex makes so many false or misguided arguments, I don’t know where to begin. Here are a few of my concerns:
1) I am getting annoyed at the NIMBYism argument. We have CAMH and a couple of St. Christopher’s facilities in our neighbourhood and we support those as they provide a benefit to the city in general. Maximizing one developer’s profit at the expense of the unique character that has emerged organically over decades on the strip is not for the societal good. Also, my understanding is that the development will increase my property values and I am still against the development, because it is wrong, regardless of my potential profit. If reserve properties wanted to slap up a homeless shelter, I would be more inclined to support them.
2) We aren’t against development, we are against OVER development.
3) You can preserve “hipness”. Look at Kensington Market, which would not exist if it were not for a strong community association.
4) That being said, it is not about hipness, it’s about a diverse community which revolves to a large extent around Givins Shaw Public School (which incidentally was successfully invigorated to be the most sought after school around, as a result of a community effort). Others may see us as a party zone, but those of us that live here during the week know that it’s more about kids. The frat house monstrosity of 109 Oz would be anti-family.
5) There are plenty of places in Toronto that are targetted for further development by the official City Plan. Ossington is not one of them. So there is no compelling reason to jeopardize a unique culture just to build some overpriced condos in a bubble market.
6) Mundial auto motors was a good neighbour, not a waste of space as impled by the picture above. It was great having a neighbourhood business and a convenient place for car repairs. I don’t blame them for selling, but don’t say that a condo is an improvement over a neighbourhood garage.
7) Many of us who are against the development moved here because of the school or have lived here for decades. One example (of many): I spoke with one fellow who bought his house for $5,000 some 40 years ago. He is against the development. Many of my older Portuguese neighbours have vibrant vegetable gardens that they live on for much of the year. The development will cover their gardens in shadow and raise their property taxes. So the idea that this is just new residents trying to preserve a transient hipness is not credible.
Funny, Benj. Glad you’re not the public spokesperson for this organization. Oh, wait.
Good luck, Ossington. He’s all yours.
First off: don’t compare Ossington to King West at Shaw / Strachan. That area never had retail at ground level — the city and developers created a new neighbourhood from the ground up. There is no mix of buildings on King West, no restaurants established, etc. It’s like me comparing apples to other apples. Yes there are apples, but one from Ontario is different from one from Chile.
“The frat house monstrosity of 109 Oz would be anti-family.”
That says it all about the opponents of this project: while they all preach diversity, as long as its not allowing anyone other than “families” to be in the area. The problem is not the 109OZ, its the actual bar and restaurant scene that already exists there!
“There are plenty of places in Toronto that are targetted for further development by the official City Plan. Ossington is not one of them.”
Says who? People want to live on Ossington (much like yourself). So because they cannot afford $1-million homes they can’t be a part of the neighbourhood? While the condos are over-priced, the same can be said for the homes in the area.
‘I don’t blame them for selling, but don’t say that a condo is an improvement over a neighbourhood garage.”
I will say it. For all the complaints about noise, the pllution that car garages add to ground soil is horrible. The amount of noise is just as bad.
“I spoke with one fellow who bought his house for $5,000 some 40 years ago. He is against the development.”
Of course he is. I’ve rarely heard of retired 70 year olds demanding that the commercial strip near their home should be more bustling, should have contemporary architecture, etc. I guess this homeowner has more rights than the single mom who wants her kid to go to Givens PS but can only afford a $300k condo? Oh right, downtown is a bad place to raise a kid.
The contradicting nature of the OSA and its proponents is becoming more clear: they do not want any change. If they did, they wouldn’t say the project is soul destroying at 6 storeys but perfect at 4. They wouldn’t claim to be family friendly when they have no idea if the new residents here will be young, old, singles, single mom families, single dad families, or couples, etc
@Ossington Community Assoc. After the community meeting, I was still neutral on 109OZ and you almost had me convinced that a 6 storey building would destroy the neighborhood. However I’m less and less inclined to side with you after reading the numerous and lengthy comments / counter-arguments you’ve written on so many online articles.
You can talk all day about what’s wrong with 109OZ and pick apart the proposal (as you’ve so thoroughly done in your PPT/PDF slideshow. Yes, I bothered to read it, and the graphics are a horror show of erroneous interpretations of the architectural drawings BTW), but you’ve only proven yourselves to be long winded, narrow minded and ill-suited to represent the community’s interests as a whole. What a turn-off.
The marginalisation of those with faith in the OP, City policies and inclusive democracy marches on. And, we bemoan the low turnout at election time, huh.
CARL – I feel precisely as you do. Having now read the diatribes from the leaders of this anti-development crusade, and endured the community consultation, I also have reached my own conclusion. This is people agitating simply for making a stink – there isn’t a single argument they have that actually has any real salience. And I live nearby, so this is as much my neighbourhood as theirs.
Their position is primarily mean-spirited, and at it’s core is about not wanting developers to make any money, and making a grand pronouncement to people who don’t have the money they do: “DON’T BUY IN MY NEIGHBOUROOD”. Why? Because you are too young, because you don’t have enough money to buy a $1M house, because you are going to drive like a moron and run over my kids, because you enjoy going out at night, and because you might live above some retail that could be super useful.
It’s absurd. I’m told these people are academics, so the most we can hope is that their jobs have them back in class in September. And how sad to think that these people have the minds of children in their care – the notion that they might spread this silliness and purely spiteful behaviour to others is worrisome.
This hopefully will go away quickly. It’s sad to know that we share our city with such closed minded people.
BUILD IT.
Justin, where actually do you live? I’m curious.
You may have noticed that the developers on Queen, east of CAMH, have put up buildings that respect their surroundings. Even west, if you look at 2 Ossington. Super useful retail? You may have noticed that the new CAMH rental building now has a Shoppers Drug Mart and a TD-Canada Trust branch is about to relocate to one of those corners. Cars? You may have noticed that the Argyle Lofts conversion didn’t require a lot of parking — certainly less than the bakery may have needed in the 1920s! … and so on.
There are ways to get development right. Look at the infill building next to the Lakeview Lunch. I still think the 1090z proposal is a form of misguided social engineering: “edgy for edgy people.” Guess what, that’s not how this neighbourhood was built, and the “edgy” people the developer wishes to attract will pasture here for a couple of years and then move on to the “Next Big Thing.”. Those who have roots will stay This is a neighbourhood, after all…
BTW, I’m not a property owner. I’ve rented down here since 1993. Some changes are good (e.g., getting the murderers out of Capone’s, now the Drake; or the Bumblebee, now — or once — the Paramour). I miss the butcher shop now occupied by the Painted Lady, although it is a very nice bar. I welcome Alex Rei dos Leitãos moving from what is now the Churchill on Dundas Street.
Spiteful? No. Just offering a little bit of perspective. Most of the businesses on Ossington have changed in my time here; but the buildings have remained much the same, with clever renovations. Is it such a stretch to ask the developer and his architect to work their magic within the existing height limits of Ossington? Surely they have the imagination and the technical skill.
And please, please, don’t mention the profit-maximization motive. We’re already heading into a housing bust. The drawdown on the last Toronto housing bust lasted a decade, from 1989 to 1999, bottoming out around 1995 — at a 40% devaluation. More than a few developers went out of business, as well as their financiers — including one of Canada’s oldest insurance companies, Confederation Life. That’s how Rogers got its headquarters at Mount Pleasant: a building that cost $110 million to build sold for $20 million. Real estate downturns can be brutal!
My point, residential real estate is not an investment. Prices will fluctuate over a business cycle. So instead of being envious about $1 million homes, let’s get back to brass tacks. A home is a home. That’s all. If you’re lucky, when you move on — 20 or more years hence — you’ll have matched the rate of inflation.
I’m not so sure about condos being affordable housing, not with the fees. I’m not so sure there will be any appreciation in value either — over the long-term of course. But Justin, if you have knowledge otherwise, I would be grateful if you would share it.
My primary point is the development just doesn’t fit the historic character of the street and that smart developers and architects don’t use hammers when they have more than nails to hand. They use all the tools in their kit.
My other points are not germane to this particular argument, except insofar as you bring up poor people being shut out of Ossington.I am rather doubtful about that claim. There is a lot of rental around here (just look at the second and third storeys of the buildings on Ossington; and CAMH now has a new rental building).
Equity-poor but eager prospectiive homeowners are quite a different matter. Instead, as a kind of perma-bear, what I’m arguing is the same thing as our esteemed finance minister, Mr. James Flaherty: it’s musical chairs. I think it unlikely that first-time condo owners will be able to flip their equity into something else — a bigger place, a home in which to rear children — once they get tired of 600 sqft. When interest rates rise, perhaps not in the next year, but in the next few years … they will be underwater. And if interest rates don’t rise, well that’s deflation — the worst position for a debtor to be in, because wages won’t go up, but the debt remains permanent. Either way, leveraged home/condo investors lose … unless they’re willing to stick it out for 20 years, and have the income and/or liquid assets to sustain them during difficult times. (Credit cards don’t count!)
Sorry to go on at length. But this thread, right from Alex’s opening, has wandered between whether this is a suitable development, and whether the objectors wish to shut out prospective low-income home/condo owners. They are separate issues that somehow get intermingled. I’ve tried to address both.
The developers can do better within the existing height envelope.
Affordable home-owning through condos is eminently debatable. So where are the family-oriented condos? (Sorry Shawn.)
Cheers,
Scot
“Are the houses too expensive for singletons?” Benj Hellie asks. And he suggests, “with a bit of creativity, you can rope in a friend and buy a $900K house, drop $100K into reno, and divide it in two apartments. For that you get 1K sf each and a yard, and after 25 years no more condo fees.”
First, the monthly cost of a 500-ish sf condo is more like $2000. That is the price of a $400,000 house. This condo would be somewhat bigger than my current apartment. Second, like many singletons, I really do not want to “rope” anyone, certainly not a friend, into a housing deal — especially not a deal worth more than 20 times my yearly salary. This is precisely the kind of project that can go wrong very quickly — cost overruns, disagreements with contractors, disagreements with the co-owner, etc, are very real dangers. It is condescending to suggest that undertaking a project like this takes only a “bit of creativity”. Finally, this suggestion displays a lack of sensitivity to the money and time pressures experienced by those of us not lucky enough to earn six figures.
The NIMBY folks are all recent, largely upwardly mobile professionals who would like to live in a two-story low-rise bubble while the rest of the city grows around them. It is totally bourgeois to try and prevent lower cost housing options for people who can’t qualify for a $500k mortgage to buy one of the older homes on leafy side streets.
While the 80 story tower is ludicrous, 4-12 story high density should not bother anyone on a main commercial street like Ossington unless, like the NIMBY folks, you are an elitist twit who wants to only live around other wealthy professional ‘homeowners’.
As someone who recently moved to downtown Hamilton to a house I bought here due to the fact that Toronto is unaffordable unless I want to live in a 450square foot studio condo box, I cry crocodile tears for Toronto NIMBY folks complaining about the redevelopment of the concentrated central city there and who lament the loss of unremarkable commercial buildings like posted in the google earth picture;
In Hamilton 100+ year old historic buildings are torn down constantly and turned into parking lots. This is being done by Toronto developers who buy property here and write them off as a tax loss after evicting tenants. Toronto’s prosperity is on the back of the urban fabric of this city and we are losing our historic architecture (superior to anything Toronto has recently lost yet these demolitions are never reported or noticed).
Hamiltonians dream of something, almost anything, being built in our downtown while Torontonians try to guard against mixed use and increased density in order to preserve their ‘demographic’.
I notice that my ‘modest proposal’ post was deleted but the personal attacks on me (and others who agree with me) are still around. Would you please explain your comment moderation policy?