Where to start first I live at 1501 Woodbine ave. We are ranked as one of the worse buildings in toronto by City of Toronto staffers at public hearings. Arsandco is classified as one of the worse building code violators with in the city of Toronto. Arsandco has been fined in court and right now has many building code violations that are being fought. If I remember correctly there has been about three building audits done on 1501 Woodbine ave dating back to about 2009. Also I have been working on a human rights violations case against Arsandco and Metcap living that runs this building. This case was put together with the help of CERA here in Toronto over the last year and a half. Here is a short list of the issues that are going on at 1501 Woodbine ave.

Bed bugs major issue
Coach roaches major issue
Mold in people's homes
Plumbing
Electrical
Concrete falling off the balconies
Structure problems in the underground parking
Vehicles being broken into
Accessibility issues for the disabled


Plus many more issues all of which the city of Toronto and MLS and MRAB are all aware of because me and others have been fighting this at city Hall. So you tell me how a company such as Arsandco and the city of Toronto are in a business relationship together when Arsandco has all these legal issues with their building. This is not the first time with legal trouble for Arsandco and the city of Toronto. Arsandco are habitual repeat offenders.
 
I appreciate your post @Hazard1046, but I'm not sure what you mean by asking about a business relationship between Arsandco and the City of Toronto.

If you are thinking that this planning application suggests that there is any kind of a deal between Arsandco and the City, I can tell you that the City is required by law to consider all planning applications submitted to them. This is nothing more than the company submitting an application, same as any other developer, and the City reviewing it as they must with any application.

42
 
New docs posted May 17: http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...3893501&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false

upload_2018-6-1_21-23-30.png


upload_2018-6-1_21-24-14.png


upload_2018-6-1_21-24-57.png




upload_2018-6-1_21-23-7.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-6-1_21-23-7.png
    upload_2018-6-1_21-23-7.png
    765.3 KB · Views: 1,197
  • upload_2018-6-1_21-23-30.png
    upload_2018-6-1_21-23-30.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,201
  • upload_2018-6-1_21-24-14.png
    upload_2018-6-1_21-24-14.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,162
  • upload_2018-6-1_21-24-57.png
    upload_2018-6-1_21-24-57.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,170
New materials posted and lots of changes. Reduced residential GFA and increased non-residential GFA, reduced podium heights, more variety of unit types and sizes,

174886

174885


app.toronto.ca

Application Information Centre

Search for details about current planning applications and Minor variance and Consent applications. Application Information Centre For best results, please use the latest version of Microsoft IE/Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. As of July 30th, the Application Information Centre has...
app.toronto.ca app.toronto.ca
 
That office building is odd. A fairly large building, especially for a terrible market area, without freeway or really even strong transit access, and with unusually small floorplates. Wonder what the thought is there.
 
Undead said:
Did they say why the affordable housing is untenable?
Click to expand...

The proponent made the case that the market economics would not work.

That the added costs would render the project non-viable.

The LPAT essentially agreed with the proponent.
 
Northern Light said:
The proponent made the case that the market economics would not work.

That the added costs would render the project non-viable.

The LPAT essentially agreed with the proponent.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Would additional density have helped cover the costs?

I see one of the Block B buildings is eight floors. They could have easily bumped it 20+ like the other blocks.

Also seems like there's enough room for the Block D buildings to have longer podiums and more units.

They could have easily wrung another 200-300 units here.
 
Undead said:
Interesting. Would additional density have helped cover the costs?

I see one of the Block B buildings is eight floors. They could have easily bumped it 20+ like the other blocks.

Also seems like there's enough room for the Block D buildings to have longer podiums and more units.

They could have easily wrung another 200-300 units here.
Click to expand...

Not sure.

Certainly seems plausible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top