I agree that the site is odd with Harveys property. However People, landowners, whomever, should not be expropriated except under extraordinary circumstances. This may be odd or annoying but unless the owners of Harveys decide to sell then so be it.
 
LUVIT! said:
I agree that the site is odd with Harveys property. However People, landowners, whomever, should not be expropriated except under extraordinary circumstances. This may be odd or annoying but unless the owners of Harveys decide to sell then so be it.
Click to expand...

We will have to disagree on the latter.

Property is routinely expropriated in the City for parks, libraries, road widenings and extensions etc.

I can hardly think of a better purpose than to provide more affordable housing; and something less calling for preservation than a 1-storey, non-descript, fast food outlet.
 
Last edited:
The issue at hand that you brought up is not whether or not something is liked or disliked worthy or unworthy but of expropriation. I do indeed also hope that Harveys will willingly sell. It was the first thing I thought of when walking by recently.
 
createto.ca

1631 Queen Street East - Housing Now

createto.ca createto.ca





Key considerations for this preliminary development concept include:

Community Service Uses: Today, the Coxwell Early Learning and Childcare Centre and Beaches Employment and Social Services provide important services to the community. The preliminary development concept will include expanded space and capacity for the Coxwell Early Learning and Childcare Centre, from 26 to approximately 62 spaces. The Beaches Employment and Social Services Centre will berelocated.

Retail Space: The preliminary development concept will reflect the importance of Queen Street East as an important site of commercial activity in the area. New retail space (size to be determined) will animate Queen Street and contribute to a vibrant and active public realm. The retail space will be designed to accommodate a broad range of potential businesses.

Indigenous Placekeeping: 1631 Queen Street East presents an exciting opportunity to recognize Indigenous peoples who have lived in this territory for thousands of years. Today, Toronto is home to many First Nations, Indigenous, and Métis peoples. Next to 1631 Queen Street East is Kishigo Lane. This former road was named to honour an Anishinaabe family that lived in the area in the late 18th century. CreateTO and the City of Toronto are working to convert the lane in its current form into a publicly-accessible open space that celebrates Indigenous families and history in the area. The City of Toronto and CreateTO are looking forward to working with Indigenous communities, local residents, and many others on the design of this special space.


1630queen.JPG
 
Last edited:
www.beachmetro.com

Height of proposed Housing Now building near Coxwell and Queen has residents concerned – Beach Metro Community News

By ALI RAZA, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter As the City of Toronto moves forward to build affordable housing in the Beach, residents raised several concerns at a Housing Now project’s first community consultation meeting. Housing Now is an affordable housing initiative from the city and...
www.beachmetro.com www.beachmetro.com


At the online meeting, residents joined Beaches-East York Councillor Brad Bradford, and other staff from CreateTO and the city, to go through a brief presentation on the project and discuss concerns with the community.

“We have to find the right balance, we need reasonable density, we have to respect to the planning framework, and we want to make sure this project is livable, a welcoming community to contribute to the vibrancy of Queen Street East, but also push the envelope to meet our affordable housing goals,” Bradford said.

Residents were concerned that the development would exceed six storeys – the current bylaw restriction on Queen Street East. They also raised concerns regarding the childcare centre during construction, and the increased traffic and congestion that may follow.

“It may well be over six storeys,” city senior planner Paul Mule told residents at the meeting.

Residents Edythe Shand, Jeffrey Levitt, Sapphira Charles, and Michael Genin, all brought up concerns regarding the six storey limit. The presentation showed that while attempts would be made to maintain the height limit for the structure facing Queen Street East, the side facing Eastern Avenue would exceed six storeys.

“It’s an absolute limit,” Genin said. “You can’t do an angular plan back to some unlimited height, but I also understand there needs to be an increase in supply for affordable housing. Is there no way to hit the density goal?”

“I’m concerned because the next developer will ask why they’re limited to six storeys,” Levitt said.

Another resident, John Van Wiechen, raised concerns about increased traffic and parking needs, saying the neighbourhood does not have enough visitor parking to accommodate the new units.

-----------
Toronto City Council approved the Housing Now mandate in December 2018, and the project launched in fall 2020. The next phase for the Queen and Coxwell proposal follows community consultation, a design review panel, and Indigenous engagement.

Construction is expected to begin in late 2022, with completion expected in 2025.

The next community consultation is scheduled for summer 2021.
Click to expand...
 

Letters to the Editor: Higher buildings at East Toronto sites needed to maximize affordable-housing opportunities​


January 3, 2021

A number of local-residents and affordable-housing supporters also took part in the recent City of Toronto consultations about the Housing Now buildings proposed for 1631 Queen St. E.

While some residents on the call were concerned that the development would exceed six storeys – as defined in the Queen Street ‘Urban Design Guidelines’, our volunteers requested that the City should allow all affordable-housing projects to exceed those arbitrary height-limits that were created for market-rate developments.

As was suggested nearly a decade ago when those ‘Urban Design Guidelines’ were being drafted – it is irresponsible for the City to create design-guidelines and height-limits on Queen Street without including default waivers for not-for-profit developments.

Toronto has an affordable-housing crisis. The residents in our community can choose to be part of the problem – or part of the solution. In reality, that solution requires much greater density than any of the current ‘Urban Design Guidelines’ allow on both of the Housing Now projects at Queen and Coxwell – and at the Danforth Garage site at Coxwell and Danforth.

Our Danforth and Beaches neighbourhoods need to get denser, new rental-apartment developments near our transit stops need to be taller – and our priority as a community has to focus on more on the real-world costs of constructing new affordable-housing in the 2020s, than on shadow-policy and angular-plane designs that collude to make new affordable-housing project on those streets infeasible for not-for-profit developers.

Saying that you support new affordable-housing or seniors-housing during City planning consultations is meaningless – if you are also asking the City to enforce design-constraints and parking-minimums that make the buildings impossible to construct under a not-for-profit model.

On the site at 1631 Queen St. E., our Housing Now volunteers have asked the City to consider a 10-storey frontage on the Queen Street side of the development – with zero step-back or angular plane, while maintaining the 17-storey tower on the Eastern Avenue side.

This change alone would help to provide dozens of new affordable-housing units on the site – and increase the overall unit-count closer to 300 units with 150 units in the affordable-housing pool. We hope that more residents who are supportive of maximizing the affordable-housing opportunities on City-owned lands come-out to the next-round of consultations on these projects in 2021.

Mark Richardson

Technical Lead, Housing Now
Click to expand...

www.beachmetro.com

Letters to the Editor: Higher buildings at East Toronto sites needed to maximize affordable-housing opportunities – Beach Metro Community News

Re: 'Height of proposed Housing Now building on Queen Street East a concern for residents,' Beach Metro News, Dec. 15. A number of local-residents and
www.beachmetro.com www.beachmetro.com
 
The design bylaws should be kept with other options created to increase density rather than the taller option in existing neighbourhoods. Taller isn’t better especially if it decreases the livability with shadows etc. For current and future residents rich or poor or in between. Taller just because you have less money doesn’t cut it. In addition look at all the issues in many high rise communities in the city. Better overall design will be better for all of us.
 
AlbertC said:

Letters to the Editor: Higher buildings at East Toronto sites needed to maximize affordable-housing opportunities​


January 3, 2021



www.beachmetro.com

Letters to the Editor: Higher buildings at East Toronto sites needed to maximize affordable-housing opportunities – Beach Metro Community News

Re: 'Height of proposed Housing Now building on Queen Street East a concern for residents,' Beach Metro News, Dec. 15. A number of local-residents and
www.beachmetro.com www.beachmetro.com
Click to expand...

I agree with the thrust of the letter; I certainly support waiving parking minimums; and I'm not obsessed by the angular plane.

However, a 10-storey streetwall on Queen sounds dreadful.

I would oppose a 10-storey streetwall on most streets in most areas, suburban or urban, irrespective of housing height.

Bring set backs-in and by all means go taller.

But let's not building an ugly, massive (looking), building we'll regret.
 
I believe the thought here is that 10 floors is too high for this particular location on Queen St. E.. Ten, twenty, or fifty stories may be perfect for locations elsewhere.
 
I honestly don't think 10 storeys is dreadful - but I can understand when people wouldn't want to see that. That said, if we're limiting the site to 6 storeys I think the "angular plane" requirements should be removed. Or, people living behind the site should be ok with some sites off the main street being earmarked for middle-density affordable housing to make up the difference in units.

We have to create conditions for affordable housing to be built. Not create a set of rules and restrictions and then wring our hands and be 'surprised' when enough isn't built as a result.
 
allengeorge said:
I honestly don't think 10 storeys is dreadful - but I can understand when people wouldn't want to see that. That said, if we're limiting the site to 6 storeys I think the "angular plane" requirements should be removed. Or, people living behind the site should be ok with some sites off the main street being earmarked for middle-density affordable housing to make up the difference in units.

We have to create conditions for affordable housing to be built. Not create a set of rules and restrictions and then wring our hands and be 'surprised' when enough isn't built as a result.
Click to expand...

Important to note, my objection is not to greater height, but height of the street wall; just set it back a bit after the 4th or 5th floor and by all means go several more.

Also, I'm not taking the City seriously if they're not including the 1-storey Harvey's in the site; or redeveloping the short, TCHC building that fronts Coxwell and desperately needs replacement.

There's lots of room to be more ambitious here.

Public land aside, in speaking about what's roughly contiguous here; the site containing the OTB and Beach Cinema is only 2-storeys.

I would love to see a hole cut through the middle of the building to create a park route allowing for the future daylighting of Small's Creek; but then develop the balance of the site with 4-6 storey street wall, and 2 towers facing the Eastern Avenue frontage.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top