urbansuburban
New Member
i will do the neigbours a favor and put out standing offers for their homes at only 15% off market value! case closed. 
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
Dotherightthing
New Member
When a proposed development project negatively impacts the existing community, I would venture to guess it is often because there are multiple negative impacts from executing the project. That is certainly the case here.
In the case of Haven Developments and 101 + 103 Heath building, the developer has been very deft and politically correct by using the cancel culture tactic of accusing NIMBYism to keep the focus off a list of actual negative impacts of the project for the whole neighbourhood and keep the focus on the more upscale homeowners. They can afford to lead the fight to get the project to adhere to the City of Toronto's Official plan's depth footprint. As a long-time renter on Heath Street, I am deeply grateful to the owners who are willing to fight because personally, I could not afford to do so.
It is in Haven Developments' interest to keep the focus on these neighbours with the ducats to fight the plan and position them as greedy because it is an argument that sells well, especially to Generation Y members of the community who are fighting so hard to become homeowners. It sells a sort of David and Goliath story to the public where they are the Davids trying to build more housing despite the objections of the rich Goliaths who only care about making money. Who is actually going to be making money here? Haven Developments.
Your research is incorrect. The average sale price of homes sold in Deer Park-Mount Pleasant is actually DOWN 12% in 2021 while in so much of the rest of the city, housing sale prices are rising astronomically. This project is going to turn Heath Street traffic from complex to nightmarish, this will only bring property values down further not increase them.
The central truth here is, that a 7-unit condo building could be built on the same depth footprint as the condo next door that would satisfy all the neighbours because it would not impinge so brutally on their privacy in both their homes and gardens. And if they worked to put the exit on Oriole, it would not make my life as a renter miserable. There is no actual objection to the project itself by anyone making an objection, only to its depth footprint and the large 'minor variances' it is asking for. and to the location for the exit to the parking lot. And if these things were addressed the negative environmental impact of the project would be substantially reduced.
Another truth is a 7-unit condo building matching the depth footprint of the existing condo next door would not require the killing of two 140 to 160-year old trees, removing a massive part of the canopy that helps keep the pollution down for the entire neighbourhood, to say nothing of the loss of the inherent value of healthy trees that age in the city. A glance at the satellite image of the properties might surprise you - the canopy that these two trees create in conjunction with a third older tree on an adjacent property is enormous. I am personally going to be really affected by this because I have COPD and I need every bit of oxygen I can get.
And yet another truth is that if the developer was willing to work with the condo next door and come to an agreement to extend their underground parking lot and share the condo's parking exit via easement onto Oriole, this new building would not potentially pour additional cars into an already untenable traffic situation on Heath Street on a daily basis. The situation is dire. There is actual physical gridlock on Heath requiring people to get out of their cars and help each other get out of Jenga-like impasses by reversing and going up onto sidewalks. And the road rage this yields...? Yikes! And a recent change to make a right turn onto Heath from Yonge from 7 to 9 AM on weekdays illegal has made no difference - cars have already figured out a workaround and the rush-hour traffic on Heath is one solid line from Yonge to Avenue Road each day. The City traffic specialist's report is a haze of jargon, with claims of erudite realms of expertise on traffic and urban planning trends explaining this kind of traffic is all standard for big cities and to be expected - but the reality of living daily life and traffic on Heath is a whole other story. The morality of selling condos with parking spaces where you won't be able to exit your driveway to get to work in the morning?
We cannot object ENOUGH to the full range of this proposed projects' negative impacts on our community. But Haven Developments is simply not interested in any compromise. This is shortsighted but they only want maximum ROI.
So, a darker significant truth is Haven Developments are deflecting the truth of their own greed (the project would be financially viable as a 7-condo unit and acceptable to the neighbours, they just want to make more money) by creating the illusion that it is really that the other property owners who are the objecting, greedy, NIMBYists to obscure the fact that there are key negative impacts that will be as significant to a multitude of renters like myself and the larger community many who have lived around this project most of our lives.
And there is an even darker part of the story that really could use some daylight. How are these new developer-landlords treating the existing tenants who have to live in these buildings through this transition period while they try and get the project off the ground? I don't even want to ask them. But living across the street we can see for ourselves that Haven Developments does not maintain the property or do repairs. This property used to be well maintained. Now it is a disgrace. Haven Developments clearly have no interest in being basic let alone conscientious landlords and they have let the properties run down while they push to get the outcome they are seeking. This is a story that is rarely explored...Yet, how many renters in the same position in this city are experiencing the same fates when developers take over as landlords?
I have rented across the street from the project for 30 years. The only way I am leaving my apartment is feet first. I don't stand to make a penny here. So greed? Wrong again.
And these condos? These are going to be million-dollar-plus condos. So, who really is going to be getting into the market here? Not me. Are you? Important to get your facts straight. We need more affordable housing in this city to be sure, but this project is selling high-end luxury condos, there will be nothing affordable about them. |t will be cha-ching, cha-ching which is the sound of a Haven Developments payday.
In the case of Haven Developments and 101 + 103 Heath building, the developer has been very deft and politically correct by using the cancel culture tactic of accusing NIMBYism to keep the focus off a list of actual negative impacts of the project for the whole neighbourhood and keep the focus on the more upscale homeowners. They can afford to lead the fight to get the project to adhere to the City of Toronto's Official plan's depth footprint. As a long-time renter on Heath Street, I am deeply grateful to the owners who are willing to fight because personally, I could not afford to do so.
It is in Haven Developments' interest to keep the focus on these neighbours with the ducats to fight the plan and position them as greedy because it is an argument that sells well, especially to Generation Y members of the community who are fighting so hard to become homeowners. It sells a sort of David and Goliath story to the public where they are the Davids trying to build more housing despite the objections of the rich Goliaths who only care about making money. Who is actually going to be making money here? Haven Developments.
Your research is incorrect. The average sale price of homes sold in Deer Park-Mount Pleasant is actually DOWN 12% in 2021 while in so much of the rest of the city, housing sale prices are rising astronomically. This project is going to turn Heath Street traffic from complex to nightmarish, this will only bring property values down further not increase them.
The central truth here is, that a 7-unit condo building could be built on the same depth footprint as the condo next door that would satisfy all the neighbours because it would not impinge so brutally on their privacy in both their homes and gardens. And if they worked to put the exit on Oriole, it would not make my life as a renter miserable. There is no actual objection to the project itself by anyone making an objection, only to its depth footprint and the large 'minor variances' it is asking for. and to the location for the exit to the parking lot. And if these things were addressed the negative environmental impact of the project would be substantially reduced.
Another truth is a 7-unit condo building matching the depth footprint of the existing condo next door would not require the killing of two 140 to 160-year old trees, removing a massive part of the canopy that helps keep the pollution down for the entire neighbourhood, to say nothing of the loss of the inherent value of healthy trees that age in the city. A glance at the satellite image of the properties might surprise you - the canopy that these two trees create in conjunction with a third older tree on an adjacent property is enormous. I am personally going to be really affected by this because I have COPD and I need every bit of oxygen I can get.
And yet another truth is that if the developer was willing to work with the condo next door and come to an agreement to extend their underground parking lot and share the condo's parking exit via easement onto Oriole, this new building would not potentially pour additional cars into an already untenable traffic situation on Heath Street on a daily basis. The situation is dire. There is actual physical gridlock on Heath requiring people to get out of their cars and help each other get out of Jenga-like impasses by reversing and going up onto sidewalks. And the road rage this yields...? Yikes! And a recent change to make a right turn onto Heath from Yonge from 7 to 9 AM on weekdays illegal has made no difference - cars have already figured out a workaround and the rush-hour traffic on Heath is one solid line from Yonge to Avenue Road each day. The City traffic specialist's report is a haze of jargon, with claims of erudite realms of expertise on traffic and urban planning trends explaining this kind of traffic is all standard for big cities and to be expected - but the reality of living daily life and traffic on Heath is a whole other story. The morality of selling condos with parking spaces where you won't be able to exit your driveway to get to work in the morning?
We cannot object ENOUGH to the full range of this proposed projects' negative impacts on our community. But Haven Developments is simply not interested in any compromise. This is shortsighted but they only want maximum ROI.
So, a darker significant truth is Haven Developments are deflecting the truth of their own greed (the project would be financially viable as a 7-condo unit and acceptable to the neighbours, they just want to make more money) by creating the illusion that it is really that the other property owners who are the objecting, greedy, NIMBYists to obscure the fact that there are key negative impacts that will be as significant to a multitude of renters like myself and the larger community many who have lived around this project most of our lives.
And there is an even darker part of the story that really could use some daylight. How are these new developer-landlords treating the existing tenants who have to live in these buildings through this transition period while they try and get the project off the ground? I don't even want to ask them. But living across the street we can see for ourselves that Haven Developments does not maintain the property or do repairs. This property used to be well maintained. Now it is a disgrace. Haven Developments clearly have no interest in being basic let alone conscientious landlords and they have let the properties run down while they push to get the outcome they are seeking. This is a story that is rarely explored...Yet, how many renters in the same position in this city are experiencing the same fates when developers take over as landlords?
I have rented across the street from the project for 30 years. The only way I am leaving my apartment is feet first. I don't stand to make a penny here. So greed? Wrong again.
And these condos? These are going to be million-dollar-plus condos. So, who really is going to be getting into the market here? Not me. Are you? Important to get your facts straight. We need more affordable housing in this city to be sure, but this project is selling high-end luxury condos, there will be nothing affordable about them. |t will be cha-ching, cha-ching which is the sound of a Haven Developments payday.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
HouseSigma
housesigma.com
Detached houses in Yonge-St Clair are up 18% YoY, compared to the citywide average of 11%. So not only are you wrong, houses in the area are increasing in price faster than the city average.
Also, the condos here will indeed likely be 1+ million. But you know what? That's a fraction of the sale prices of existing houses on this neighbourhood, which range from $3 million to nearly $15 million. The two homes on this block to sell this year sold for $4.1 and $5.5 million each. The Yonge St. Clair average sale price for a detached home is a whopping $3.3 million. So $1 million is a damn steal to live in this neighbourhood compared to current options.
Also, I never understand NIMBY's always suggesting that developers making profit being a bad thing and automatically making them evil. We live in a capitalist society, and as far as I know no other industry is demonized for making money.
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Dotherightthing
New Member
Just sayin don't make it so. Where is your proof? Here is mine.
I am retired so I can watch full time.
Examples of Freeholds within 3 blocks that could not get the asking price and that were taken off the market: 109 Heath, and 50 Foxbar.
Examples of Freeholds sold or selling under asking - 47 Alvin sold for 12% under asking.
Currently for sale Freehold 99 Balmoral: is currently listed for more than 12% less than other properties. See the listing on Zoocasa.
Haven Developments is the developer and THEY initiated the demonizing tactics, not any of us. Check the Globe and Mail article. attached to this link. Did you read it? They are the ones that called current homeowners who just want the City of Toronto Official Plan to be followed NIMBYists - when neither homeowners nor renters are saying 'not in my backyard'' to this project. Get your facts straight, read the Globe and Mail article.
I am retired so I can watch full time.
Examples of Freeholds within 3 blocks that could not get the asking price and that were taken off the market: 109 Heath, and 50 Foxbar.
Examples of Freeholds sold or selling under asking - 47 Alvin sold for 12% under asking.
Currently for sale Freehold 99 Balmoral: is currently listed for more than 12% less than other properties. See the listing on Zoocasa.
Haven Developments is the developer and THEY initiated the demonizing tactics, not any of us. Check the Globe and Mail article. attached to this link. Did you read it? They are the ones that called current homeowners who just want the City of Toronto Official Plan to be followed NIMBYists - when neither homeowners nor renters are saying 'not in my backyard'' to this project. Get your facts straight, read the Globe and Mail article.
Dotherightthing
New Member
FYI. This project is not located at Yonge and St. Clair it is in Deer Park (see the map at the link below). The Yonge and St. Clair catchment for the statistics you are quoting is too wide and includes Forest Hill homes which are very expensive and skew the statistics.
Admittedly, I have the advantage because I live in this area so I am familiar with it. This link will show you the map of where this project is and the housing sales in the neighbourhood. https://www.redfin.ca/on/toronto/deer-park
Redfin statics says that sale prices in Deer Park are actually down in our neighbourhood by 16% at this link.
Sale Price
-16.4%
since last year
Admittedly, I have the advantage because I live in this area so I am familiar with it. This link will show you the map of where this project is and the housing sales in the neighbourhood. https://www.redfin.ca/on/toronto/deer-park
Redfin statics says that sale prices in Deer Park are actually down in our neighbourhood by 16% at this link.
Deer Park real estate trends
$1.14MSale Price
-16.4%
since last year
Undead
Senior Member
I mean, we posted sources from Toronto listing services, you're posting claims. Sometimes houses sell under asking because the owners might have been asking for a stratospheric price. Heath street is a 2 minute walk away from Yonge-St. Clair so it's well within the cachement area used by the website where I got my data. Why am I wasting my time here lol
Dotherightthing
New Member
Hmmm.
Is this your apology for being wrong?
Is this your apology for calling me greedy when I don't stand to make a penny?
Is your apology talking about accusing demonizing when the developer is the only person who has named-called their opponents in the written press is the developer and none of us have done the same in response?
Is this your apology for accusing me of pivoting when several of you have done it over and over yourselves?
Is this your apology for outing me and requiring me to state my vested interest in objecting to this project to defend that I stand to make no money? What is your vested interest in this project? Why on earth are you so pro developer? Silence.
Is this your apology for insulting me because I am trying to post my truths about this situation in which I do have a vested interest? What is the purpose of this site? Is it a legitimate site to express opinions about Urban Toronto or not?
Other than snappy remarks, you have not listed one sensible reason for you to support a project that steals quality of life from everyone that surrounds it.
This project will permit not just doubling because doubling would be acceptable, it would permit TRIPLING of the size of the buildings on the new building. Think about it, they want to use 95% of the property for the building, leaving no garden and barely any landscaping, and the city is not objecting because they want the tax money even though this project just blows past any boundaries set by The City of Toronto's own official plan. Why are you not objecting? What do you stand to gain?
Hmmm.
Mr. Abate the CEO of Haven Developments is selling an image about himself to the public on his website. "Paolo gives back." https://havendevelopments.ca/ceo-paolo-abate-gives-back-to-toronto/
In real life, he name calls his opponents in the free press.
In real life, he bought two properties on a nice street and for two years he has not maintained these properties. I am witness to this fact I live smack across the street my balcony faces these houses.
In real life, he blurs the images of his property on Google Earth so no one can see online how these properties are being maintained, or not.
In real life, he wants to put a cement building over 95% of his property killing three 140 to 160-year-old trees in a community, where the average age of residents is older and we need all the oxygen we can get, to say nothing of saving trees that age.
In real life, he wants to pour 12 cars ADDITIONAL cars into one long line of westbound traffic in the morning from Yonge to Avenue Road and people sit in this traffic for as much as 15 minutes in order to turn left onto Avenue Road.
In real life, he is not open to NOT ONE CHANGE in his plans. Oh, no, wait, I forgot, he is offering to 'frost' the windows so new condo owners in his building are not able to look directly into the bedrooms of the row of townhouses on Deer Park Cr. Seriously?
In real life, What is Paolo doing to us?
Mr. Abate wants you and the community to believe he is Robinhood. But I am asking you to look more closely, who is this project really taking from?
Mr. Abate wants you to believe he is David. Is he actually David or Goliath?
You seem wholly uninterested in the truth here. Why? What IS your vested interest to respond to my posts the way you do?
This is not a gentle densification project. For the people that live in the spaces that surround it, is a brutal densification project. The only entity which stands to make millions of dollars from this brutality? Haven Developments.
Do you know how many people living on this street who are on Old Age Pension and CPP, the way I am will be affected by this project? My buildings are full of women like me. We are going to have to fight to watch out for even more people driving up onto the sidewalks to extricate themselves from the traffic because they have road rage? You have positioned this as a rich person's problem. You are really wrong and you have been very blythe and unkind in the face of a real problem for us.
I would appreciate apologies from all of you.
Is this your apology for being wrong?
Is this your apology for calling me greedy when I don't stand to make a penny?
Is your apology talking about accusing demonizing when the developer is the only person who has named-called their opponents in the written press is the developer and none of us have done the same in response?
Is this your apology for accusing me of pivoting when several of you have done it over and over yourselves?
Is this your apology for outing me and requiring me to state my vested interest in objecting to this project to defend that I stand to make no money? What is your vested interest in this project? Why on earth are you so pro developer? Silence.
Is this your apology for insulting me because I am trying to post my truths about this situation in which I do have a vested interest? What is the purpose of this site? Is it a legitimate site to express opinions about Urban Toronto or not?
Other than snappy remarks, you have not listed one sensible reason for you to support a project that steals quality of life from everyone that surrounds it.
This project will permit not just doubling because doubling would be acceptable, it would permit TRIPLING of the size of the buildings on the new building. Think about it, they want to use 95% of the property for the building, leaving no garden and barely any landscaping, and the city is not objecting because they want the tax money even though this project just blows past any boundaries set by The City of Toronto's own official plan. Why are you not objecting? What do you stand to gain?
Hmmm.
Mr. Abate the CEO of Haven Developments is selling an image about himself to the public on his website. "Paolo gives back." https://havendevelopments.ca/ceo-paolo-abate-gives-back-to-toronto/
In real life, he name calls his opponents in the free press.
In real life, he bought two properties on a nice street and for two years he has not maintained these properties. I am witness to this fact I live smack across the street my balcony faces these houses.
In real life, he blurs the images of his property on Google Earth so no one can see online how these properties are being maintained, or not.
In real life, he wants to put a cement building over 95% of his property killing three 140 to 160-year-old trees in a community, where the average age of residents is older and we need all the oxygen we can get, to say nothing of saving trees that age.
In real life, he wants to pour 12 cars ADDITIONAL cars into one long line of westbound traffic in the morning from Yonge to Avenue Road and people sit in this traffic for as much as 15 minutes in order to turn left onto Avenue Road.
In real life, he is not open to NOT ONE CHANGE in his plans. Oh, no, wait, I forgot, he is offering to 'frost' the windows so new condo owners in his building are not able to look directly into the bedrooms of the row of townhouses on Deer Park Cr. Seriously?
In real life, What is Paolo doing to us?
Mr. Abate wants you and the community to believe he is Robinhood. But I am asking you to look more closely, who is this project really taking from?
Mr. Abate wants you to believe he is David. Is he actually David or Goliath?
You seem wholly uninterested in the truth here. Why? What IS your vested interest to respond to my posts the way you do?
This is not a gentle densification project. For the people that live in the spaces that surround it, is a brutal densification project. The only entity which stands to make millions of dollars from this brutality? Haven Developments.
Do you know how many people living on this street who are on Old Age Pension and CPP, the way I am will be affected by this project? My buildings are full of women like me. We are going to have to fight to watch out for even more people driving up onto the sidewalks to extricate themselves from the traffic because they have road rage? You have positioned this as a rich person's problem. You are really wrong and you have been very blythe and unkind in the face of a real problem for us.
I would appreciate apologies from all of you.
Last edited:
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
That's a lot of words for a Sunday morning that could be replaced with 5 simple ones.
greenleaf
Senior Member
Your feelings and emotions are valid and I appreciate you bringing them into this space but there is a full NIMBY bingo card among your statements that are not valid or backed up by data or overall goals to provide more housing more people who need it too.
Northern Light
Superstar
Stop.
Fundamentally, no one is more sympathetic on this forum to the plight of mature trees; and there is a real concern here.
Equally, like @greenleaf above I am sympathetic, to a point, with self-interest around concerns like overlook and privacy. Though the 'greater good' must be carefully weighed in such circumstances.
But you do yourself and your cause no favours with a consistently aggressive, argumentative tone. Let's be frank here, that the people with whom you are exchanging are not on the Committee of Adjustment that will review this file; but you've done more here to ensure they will submit/depute favourably than not.
Your arguments around property values are very strange if in fact you a renter in a building across the street; and regardless, there is no reason to believe that:
a) Property values here will be materially impacted by this development; whatever quality of life impacts this proposal may have, any additional density permissions/precedents will act to offset in terms of property appreciation.
b) Property values are not a broader concern the City corporately, nor the community at large.
Not a winning argument at all.
The inflated arguments around traffic are also problematic, and in any event can be addressed any number of ways.
I am sympathetic to the argument around the trees. It is clear the canopy will be thinned here and that is unfortunate. Sticking to that argument would actually strengthen any case for changes.
However, the challenge you have is that there is an extraordinary amount of tree preservation in this proposal; and IF the developer observes the conditions set out in the Arborist's report they will represent
a material cost and hassle to save trees that is rarely made in Toronto.
I will address the tree issue in detail, in the post below.
Attachments
Northern Light
Superstar
This is the only large, native tree that will be removed:
While that is unfortunate.........I would like to point out in this photo that the tree in question has not been treated kindly over the years, if there is a car parking right on top of its roots!
I do wonder if anyone said anything about that in the past.
This is the tree inventory:
Trees in yellow are to be removed. That's a lot; but it needs to be said most are small, and non-native.
Let's look.
First at size......30cm DBH (diameter at breast height) is the measure the City by-laws uses to define large trees worthy of protection.
DBH is the 4th column above.
There are three trees slated for removal that are larger than 30cm. Trees 6,7 and 14.
I noted 14 above already.
In respect of the other two..........Neither are native. White Mulberry is native to Northern China, while Austrian Pine, as you might expect, is a central European species.
Neither are terribly invasive. The Mulberry does look quite charming and is in decent health; while the Austrian Pine is decent in health, but not a looker, at of an age where deterioration is likely in the next few years.
This is the landscape plan:
Note that the 4 large'ish circles at the rear of the property (right side of image) are all being preserved) The front side of the property will get two new trees planted, 'honey locust' and each will get 40m3 of soil which is reasonable, and exceeds minimum standards. The species in question is 'near-native' (Native to southern Ontario, though a bit south-west of Toronto). It's a good performer on tough sites though, so in decent conditions, as proposed here, may get quite large with time.
The lot lines here are rather amusing: (yes, I need to get out more)
I'm just looking at the lot for 18A.....what a bizarre shape!
At any rate, the properties impacted here are principally, 18-22 Deer Park Crescent.
20-22 are new builds, complete in the last 18 months. They are actually too new to be on Streetview.
But i think you can be sure they removed some trees and some character going up.
Looking at 18/18A.........was there concern about height and trees when this went in?
4 garages, mostly paved front yards (at least one side is permeable.....maybe....(depends what's under the brick)
At any rate..........there appears to be a good space in the backyards here to plant trees.
Still should be some decent southern sun, but to be safe, go for shade-tolerant and native Sugar Maples. Homeowners here can get instant privacy w/these too, if they are willing to shell out some $$$.
Large ones can be craned in a few k. If they are among the objectors.........might be a good moment to talk to Haven about springing for the new trees in exchange for withdrawing same.
Just sayin...
While that is unfortunate.........I would like to point out in this photo that the tree in question has not been treated kindly over the years, if there is a car parking right on top of its roots!
I do wonder if anyone said anything about that in the past.
This is the tree inventory:
Trees in yellow are to be removed. That's a lot; but it needs to be said most are small, and non-native.
Let's look.
First at size......30cm DBH (diameter at breast height) is the measure the City by-laws uses to define large trees worthy of protection.
DBH is the 4th column above.
There are three trees slated for removal that are larger than 30cm. Trees 6,7 and 14.
I noted 14 above already.
In respect of the other two..........Neither are native. White Mulberry is native to Northern China, while Austrian Pine, as you might expect, is a central European species.
Neither are terribly invasive. The Mulberry does look quite charming and is in decent health; while the Austrian Pine is decent in health, but not a looker, at of an age where deterioration is likely in the next few years.
This is the landscape plan:
Note that the 4 large'ish circles at the rear of the property (right side of image) are all being preserved) The front side of the property will get two new trees planted, 'honey locust' and each will get 40m3 of soil which is reasonable, and exceeds minimum standards. The species in question is 'near-native' (Native to southern Ontario, though a bit south-west of Toronto). It's a good performer on tough sites though, so in decent conditions, as proposed here, may get quite large with time.
The lot lines here are rather amusing: (yes, I need to get out more)
I'm just looking at the lot for 18A.....what a bizarre shape!
At any rate, the properties impacted here are principally, 18-22 Deer Park Crescent.
20-22 are new builds, complete in the last 18 months. They are actually too new to be on Streetview.
But i think you can be sure they removed some trees and some character going up.
Looking at 18/18A.........was there concern about height and trees when this went in?
4 garages, mostly paved front yards (at least one side is permeable.....maybe....(depends what's under the brick)
At any rate..........there appears to be a good space in the backyards here to plant trees.
Still should be some decent southern sun, but to be safe, go for shade-tolerant and native Sugar Maples. Homeowners here can get instant privacy w/these too, if they are willing to shell out some $$$.
Large ones can be craned in a few k. If they are among the objectors.........might be a good moment to talk to Haven about springing for the new trees in exchange for withdrawing same.
Just sayin...
Last edited:
Dotherightthing
New Member
Generalized statements like á full NIMBY bingo card, are accusations without backup. That statement then becomes a potshot as you do not take the time to actually explain the logic of your accusation and therefore it cannot be refuted.
To be honest, your statement implies that everyone reading this post is clear about the definition of NIMBY. Are you sure?
Ok. I'll bite. I looked it up for anyone who cares to read it. And you can read it here too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY
A NIMBY would involve a claim saying NO to the project and advocating it be built elsewhere. . No one here is saying NO build it elsewhere which would make it a NIMBYist claim. It would be welcomed as a 7-unit condo on the same depth footprint as the condo next door, despite strong your innuendo statement of strong suspicions' of wanting it to stay a single-family. Are you crazy - what planet do live on? One of the houses involved in the project s already a four-plex and has been for 20 years. So 5 families were already renting these two spaces making up this project for the last 20 years. Who objected to that? Nó one here. Large houses are turned into 5 units or more every day of the week around here! There are very few people in this neighbourhood who can afford or even want to live in such large houses anymore. This is NOT Foresthill. Wrong neighbourhood. You all don't seem to be much for facts on this site. And some of your arguments belie a disconnect with even a basic understanding of the housing reality in Toronto let alone Deer Park; there are fewer and fewer single-family dwellings in our neighbourhood and that is an accepted part of our lives here. You do not know us at all.
A NIMBY claim would also involve disliking the project. In fact, most letters objecting that are on public record with the Committee of Adjustment regarding the project actually laud the design so no one finds the project unpleasant another key to making a NIMBYist claim regarding the project. There is not one person I know including me who does not find this project beautiful and thinks from a design point of view it would make a lovely addition to the neighbourhood. Beyond that, many people like me appreciate the esthetic of including a heritage home front in a new design.
A NIMBY claim would also involve advocating STRICT adherence to land use. We are saying double the size of the project, sure; and doubling the size of the project alone would already require a MAJOR 'minor variance' so this is not a NIMBYist claim because we are not advocating STRICT land use. And again, why would we? Projects being built around us routinely get minor variance approvals, it is part of our lives here.
So what ARE the actual tokens on your NIMBY bingo card? You don't say. And I can't see even one myself. So, if you are going to make the accusation, at least have the guts to back it up.
We are asking for changes to the project that is all. And the developer will not make one change. Not one. Not even ones that would be of serious advantage to them like moving the exit to the parking. Do you think people who buy these condos are not going to feel like they have been taken in when they can't even exit their own parking lot at peak travel hours? I actually wondered if The City Planning department could be held liable for this and sued by one of the condo owners on this proposed site at a future date for not objecting to the exit at this location when it came across their desks and the data was clear.
As to more housing needed? MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NEEDED. At least 1000 more condos, not including these ones, are going at our corner over the next five years. Asking that this project be a 7-unit project instead of a 12-unit project won't even put a dent into the number of condos that are going into this area. So that argument about it being such an important addition to the volume of housing by doing 12 units instead of 7 units, has to rate as the most specious argument of all. Sorry, 5 fewer units to save all kinds of quality of life in our neighbourhood is not going to negatively impact anyone who is looking for housing in this area.
Really take that in. 1000 + new condos will be built at the corner of our street in the next 5 years. They are all going to be luxury condos like this project. And most of these condos will be purchased by investors who will rent them back to people at high rates of rent. This city needs more affordable housing. None of this is going to be affordable. It is going to be bought by people who are either very well off or investors who will rent it back for high rates of rent.
https://studiogang.com/project/one-delisle ( 263 Luxury Condos)
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/04/three-tower-mixed-use-complex-proposed-yonge-and-st-clair (best guess is at least 800 Luxury living spaces because the space is literally 6 times the area of the One Delisle so it may be more there is no word yet)
To be honest, your statement implies that everyone reading this post is clear about the definition of NIMBY. Are you sure?
Ok. I'll bite. I looked it up for anyone who cares to read it. And you can read it here too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NIMBY
A NIMBY would involve a claim saying NO to the project and advocating it be built elsewhere. . No one here is saying NO build it elsewhere which would make it a NIMBYist claim. It would be welcomed as a 7-unit condo on the same depth footprint as the condo next door, despite strong your innuendo statement of strong suspicions' of wanting it to stay a single-family. Are you crazy - what planet do live on? One of the houses involved in the project s already a four-plex and has been for 20 years. So 5 families were already renting these two spaces making up this project for the last 20 years. Who objected to that? Nó one here. Large houses are turned into 5 units or more every day of the week around here! There are very few people in this neighbourhood who can afford or even want to live in such large houses anymore. This is NOT Foresthill. Wrong neighbourhood. You all don't seem to be much for facts on this site. And some of your arguments belie a disconnect with even a basic understanding of the housing reality in Toronto let alone Deer Park; there are fewer and fewer single-family dwellings in our neighbourhood and that is an accepted part of our lives here. You do not know us at all.
A NIMBY claim would also involve disliking the project. In fact, most letters objecting that are on public record with the Committee of Adjustment regarding the project actually laud the design so no one finds the project unpleasant another key to making a NIMBYist claim regarding the project. There is not one person I know including me who does not find this project beautiful and thinks from a design point of view it would make a lovely addition to the neighbourhood. Beyond that, many people like me appreciate the esthetic of including a heritage home front in a new design.
A NIMBY claim would also involve advocating STRICT adherence to land use. We are saying double the size of the project, sure; and doubling the size of the project alone would already require a MAJOR 'minor variance' so this is not a NIMBYist claim because we are not advocating STRICT land use. And again, why would we? Projects being built around us routinely get minor variance approvals, it is part of our lives here.
So what ARE the actual tokens on your NIMBY bingo card? You don't say. And I can't see even one myself. So, if you are going to make the accusation, at least have the guts to back it up.
We are asking for changes to the project that is all. And the developer will not make one change. Not one. Not even ones that would be of serious advantage to them like moving the exit to the parking. Do you think people who buy these condos are not going to feel like they have been taken in when they can't even exit their own parking lot at peak travel hours? I actually wondered if The City Planning department could be held liable for this and sued by one of the condo owners on this proposed site at a future date for not objecting to the exit at this location when it came across their desks and the data was clear.
As to more housing needed? MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS NEEDED. At least 1000 more condos, not including these ones, are going at our corner over the next five years. Asking that this project be a 7-unit project instead of a 12-unit project won't even put a dent into the number of condos that are going into this area. So that argument about it being such an important addition to the volume of housing by doing 12 units instead of 7 units, has to rate as the most specious argument of all. Sorry, 5 fewer units to save all kinds of quality of life in our neighbourhood is not going to negatively impact anyone who is looking for housing in this area.
Really take that in. 1000 + new condos will be built at the corner of our street in the next 5 years. They are all going to be luxury condos like this project. And most of these condos will be purchased by investors who will rent them back to people at high rates of rent. This city needs more affordable housing. None of this is going to be affordable. It is going to be bought by people who are either very well off or investors who will rent it back for high rates of rent.
https://studiogang.com/project/one-delisle ( 263 Luxury Condos)
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/04/three-tower-mixed-use-complex-proposed-yonge-and-st-clair (best guess is at least 800 Luxury living spaces because the space is literally 6 times the area of the One Delisle so it may be more there is no word yet)
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
47 Alvin sold for 2.5% more than it sold for a year ago. Asking prices are just that ........ asking.
Undead
Senior Member
Brandolini's law - Wikipedia
Edit: I'll say it's exceedingly odd for a renter to be worried about property values dropping. Rents follow valuations so why would one be worried about values dropping?
Last edited: