[ADRM]

The opposite of capitalism isn't density. Poli Sci 101.

And it's laughable that I am being accused of being for gentrification -- not -- while being likened to some sort of socialist/commie.

I was a PoliSci 101 TA and that is not PoliSci 101.

You know what actually is the opposite of density, though? Sprawl.

 

[Ex-Montreal Girl]

This isn't a debate about politics. It's a debate about the project. The ridiculous suggestions that the proposal be "moved" and that a private development by a private developer be built not for profit are what I was commenting on.

I didn't raise politics. I did not bring capitalism into the discussion. I was talking intelligent planning, forward-looking development, humane cities, environmental sustainability. Somehow none of these concepts have come up from any of the posters attacking me for trying to get into a discussion about these matters.

I did not say there should be no profits. I said there's more to building cities than just the consideration of developers' pockets.

I did not say a proposal should be moved. I said it would make more sense elsewhere. Big difference.

The level of hypocrisy here is mind-boggling. The lack of logic even more so. Arguments such as "Developers can't build family-sized units if they can't make profits but can't make profits from family-sized units so they should be allowed to do whatever they want where they want" is not exactly genius debating.

I wonder how many commenters here live in SFH in the inner or outer burbs. I live in a highrise. YOU?

 

[someMidTowner]

I live in a highrise. YOU?

Rented one-bedroom apartment in a mid-rise complex. Why does this point matter? Spoiler: it doesn't.

And you keep implying that there will be no family-sized units. Where is that coming from? The proposal includes 21 two-bedroom units (which you may not consider family sized), but also 11 three-bedroom units. And 3 of those are at grade townhouses with direct street level entrances. Sure there are a lot of one-bedroom units in the mix, but that's dictated by the market. The fact that an effort has been made to bring at least 11 family-sized units to a site that currently has none seems lost on you. What I see is an interesting design, a good mix of units, street level animation, and a scale that works.

 

[torontocolin]

I'm confused about the issue here. If the building were composed exclusively of three bedroom, 1000 sq ft units, would that make the size of it okay with you? If it were all bachelor apartments, but also only four stories, would that make it okay?

The site is across the street from a much, much taller high-rise. It's along a corridor with frequent bus service, and walkable to a station with subway and two streetcar connections, and which -- sorry -- has plenty of capacity for more commuters.

I'm with you that this city needs way more family-appropriate density, way more affordable housing, and especially way more affordable family-sized housing. But I don't agree that this building is obviously too large for the site. Your message is pretty mixed here.

 

[WislaHD]

.. which is ridiculously restrictive in an attempt to effectively neuter the avenue designation for the stretch. Will they get 10 here? Unlikely. But the Broadview planning study is unnecessarily restrictive.

These shoulder areas of the city need to begin accepting density, especially at corners of significant intersections.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

I like this. Good street presence and interesting window design. Agree with AoD that the entrance is a little weird - maybe eliminate the 2nd floor?

My commute is 62 Mortimer to Broadview, and both bus and station are rarely crush level crowding (unless the 100 gets backed up in traffic).

With the Sobey’s, dental, daycare, park down the hill, I’d say a good corner for density.

As for the ‘through traffic’, who cares? Scarborough drivers can find another route.

(It’s the ultimate straw man, anyway, as zero cars use Pottery Road to get to the DVP. Bayview, maybe, but I’ve never seen it backed up.)

 

[biospherian]

Kinda resembles its counterpart in Seoul: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/05/12/gilmosery-office-seoul-archium/

 

[ptbotrmpfn]

Love it! Will photograph nice dirin* different times of day catchin* shadows differently.

 

[christiesplits]

Did anyone attend the local planning meeting at Estonian House? It sounded like there was a lot of opposition.

 

[ADRM]

Here's staff's refusal report, because the Planning process is severely broken in this city: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2018.TE30.10

 

[innsertnamehere]

Because the local Councillor produced the Broadview avenue study to try and limit development on this stretch as much as possible. Little makes me angrier about development in this city than what is going on along Broadview north of Danforth.

It also isn't surprising as this is an existing OMB appeal - the developer never expected to get approval from the city. A refusal report from city staff is just ammunition in the OMB appeal.

 

[someMidTowner]

Demolition underway:

 

[PMT]

There is a telephone conference at the LPAT scheduled for October 3, 2018: https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL180429

 

[PMT]

The applicant has already filed a site-specific appeal of OPA 343, which has a second hearing scheduled for November 14, 2018: https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL160686

The LPAT has ruled that the appeal for this site will be put on hold until the OPA 343 appeal is disposed of: http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl180429-Nov-01-2018.pdf

 

[Sherrie74]

As of today Whistlers is no more! The tear down began today. Regarding comment about the idea that Todmorden Library being moved there, I highly doubt they would move it from a City owned site to a privately owned site they would have to pay a lot more to rent. They just did a total reno on it at EY Comm Ctr as well. From what I heard the height restriction on east side was upped to 8 storeys recently ... so they may have gotten a grant of another 2 floors.