I'm not sure what to think about this...as it seems an odd place to stick this on such a cozy, treed corner. I get there are two towers being proposed across the road from this, but something is fairly disconcerting about this proposal to me. I guess what I like to see is far more retention of those elder buildings that give that corner that warmth. And moar trees please...

...because at the end of day, I don't throw out that ode to Mr. Prii either.
 
Original

DALTON 3.JPG
lowther2.JPG
DALTON.JPG
AXO.JPG
WEST REAR YARD.JPG
 
The public meeting for this and 40 Walmer were combined and held on Dec 18th.

This project (Lowther) is the second to be discussed beginning in/around 38M

This is the link to the recording:

toronto.webex.com

Meet virtually with Cisco Webex. Anytime, anywhere, on any device.

Simple, modern video meetings for everyone on the world's most popular and trusted collaboration platform.
toronto.webex.com toronto.webex.com

Gabriel Fain speaks here and he does a very good job in his presentation. It's very clear City staff, including heritage have been talked to extensively and are preliminarily supportive.

****

The comments kicked off as quite favourable; the first real objection wasn't to the development itself, it was if the city could mitigate against construction workers taking up lots of street parking.

Councillor Saxe basically said no, but then added that she is in discussions with the Toronto Parking Authority about implementing a lot more pay and display on streets where non-permit parking is currently free. Excellent!

Some comments asked about 'affordable housing' and the Councillor noted the City can't impose affordable housing currently, because the province is holding up the applicable Official Plan amendment.

On tenure, the proponent said that rental vs ownership has not been decided; nor have price points; the Councillor did note that she would consider 'Open Door' and or other incentives to obtain affordable housing in these and other applications.

The first real objection I've heard is that someone whose currently living in an affordable apartment on Walmer and her principle objection is that all the construction will interfere w/her working from home 3 days a week. She also did say she liked the SFH residential character where such is in place. Curious to hear that from someone who is not a homeowner.

A concern raised about a loss of a community garden and community fridge; I'm not sure which of the two sites this is about.

Surprising number of renters on Walmer objecting.

Final resident. Henry Wiercinski, was the most over the top, called the proposal for 175 a rock through the window and abominable; called 40 Walmer proposal an obscenity; and then proceeded to correct people on how to pronounced Lowther. LOL
In case you didn't guess; he's the Vice Chair with @AlexBozikovic ' favourite group, the Annex Resident's Association.

Talk about immoderate. Hyperbole redefined, yikes.

Overall, I had a sense of a mixed bag on public/resident opinion on this one, there were clearly several residents in favour, including immediate neighbour of this proposal, there were a few objectors as well; though only the last was over wrought.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Surprising number of renters on Walmer objecting.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this doesn't surprise me. I live in the West Bend, where I've learned that many of the opponents to intensification around Bloor/Dundas are renters living in duplexes or triplexes. Many have practical reasons - parking, traffic, shadows over the community gardens, loss of small businesses - while others I suspect are more ideological - anti-developer, concern over gentrification, etc. I'm sympathetic to some of these arguments, less so to others, but it is a lesson in not painting opposition with a wide brush.

Northern Light said:
Final resident. Henry Wiercinski, was the most over the top, called the proposal for 175 a rock through the window and abominable; called 40 Walmer proposal an obscenity; and then proceeded to correct people on how to pronounced Lowther. LOL
Click to expand...

That's the most Annex man ever lol.
 
Undead said:
Renters being against developers makes sense to me: developers lobby the feds to bring ever more people which drives up rents.
Click to expand...

Thems some policy wonk renters you know, LOL

Ok, I'm one of them; but I would never assume I was a representative sample of the populace at large. LOL
 
Eh, it's a simple connection, I think. The whole development industry already has a bad rep with the general public, for good reason. So reaction against redevelopment is natural, even among ordinary people.

And people active in policy wonk type of stuff like community consultations are even more likely to make connections and have opinions.
 
Northern Light said:
The first real objection I've heard is that someone whose currently living in an affordable apartment on Walmer and her principle objection is that all the construction will interfere w/her working from home 3 days a week. She also did say she liked the SFH residential character where such is in place. Curious to hear that from someone who is not a homeowner.
Click to expand...
People are funny, I guess getting a largely uninterrupted view is appealing
 
@AlexBozikovic has a pretty good piece on this one in the Globe:

www.theglobeandmail.com

A denser city? In The Annex, neighbours say no

A new apartment building in the Annex represents a major assault to Toronto’s single-family ‘Yellowbelt’
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

I could do with tad less of the rhetorical overreach at the beginning, but overall I'm in agreement with Alex here.

This is a very supportable project.

His piece here features some nuance in showcasing one opponent who is actually a rooming house resident, worried the precedent may see her evicted. Alex addresses policies with which the woman may be unfamiliar (rental replacement); though some detail might be missing to discuss her particular circumstance (such as what number of units are in her current home, and that compensation during a displaced period is not always fulsome).

***

What's most interesting in the piece is Alex's choice to make note of some of the very well known people objecting here, by name, which is entirely fair given that they are on the record as such.

I disagree with those objectors here, but I don't think giving them some added publicity here is an exercise in shaming, but in asking one to own their public statements, and explain some hypocricy perhaps.

I will highlight those quotes, while commending people to follow the link and read the whole column. People many UT'ers will know:

1712671458299.png


**

1712671527523.png


**

"And this week, the words about “razor wire” came in a letter from the ARA, signed by co-chairs Elizabeth Sisam and Henry Wiercinski"

****

So we have some people above tied to a firm that has worked on many projects backed by @HousingNowTO opposing fairly thoughtful density in their own neighbourhood; and a former politician who is also
a major developer and owner of rental apartment buildings decrying same in his area.

Not the best look.

I'm more sympathetic than some here to retain contextual heritage, and preserving mature trees and area vibe.

But this is a pretty sensitive offering that is not a contextual outlier.

Regardless, if one were to oppose this; I would prefer arguments that were less hyperbolic and over the top. I don't like that from any side of any issue, ever. Constructive, thoughtful, well evidenced opinions are always best.
 
Last edited:
I would agree with Bozikovic that the site makes sense for intensification. At 6 or 7 storeys, no one bats an eye. I don't like the proposal, but that's personal taste.

I think Montgomery's last words are legit. A site zoned for Neighbourhoods (low rise residential) is being changed to Apartment Neighbourhoods (much higher density). The question of whether this sets off a precedent is legit. The City says they don't believe so, but truth be told, the city knows it will set the precedent and in fact that is exactly what they are looking to do. Not so dissimilar to the adding of 5 to 10 storeys as a minor variances. Reactive tactical planning as opposed to strategic proactive planning. I don't think we will like where this takes us long term.
 
Midtown Hank said:
I would agree with Bozikovic that the site makes sense for intensification. At 6 or 7 storeys, no one bats an eye.
Click to expand...

Well, the Annex Residents Association might, they've been known to throw up pretty maximal fuss over shorter proposals than that.

Midtown Hank said:
I think Montgomery's last words are legit. A site zoned for Neighbourhoods (low rise residential) is being changed to Apartment Neighbourhoods (much higher density). The question of whether this sets off a precedent is legit. The City says they don't believe so, but truth be told, the city knows it will set the precedent and in fact that is exactly what they are looking to do. Not so dissimilar to the adding of 5 to 10 storeys as a minor variances.
Click to expand...

I think that really depends.

The arguments here would be this is contiguous to the Apartment Neighbourhood that exists today; proximity to transit, the fact this proposal will entirely preserve one heritage building, demolish only non-heritage and set back the tower form to preserve some contexuality.

If the above is argued, that limits this 'precedent' from spreading particularly quickly.

One has to consider the need to go around heritage, and extant or possible lot assemblies, among other things.

Lets examine what's here now from the Block Context Plan:

1712690133184.png


Note that this assembly allows greater depth than any other lot on the street to the south, or most of what's one street to the west.

I don't think a simple assembly going down Dalton wouldn't really create anything viable given the cost of acquisition.

I see many sites that appear more viable that are already under the apartment neighbourhood zoning.

Notably 30 Walmer (3 storey apartment)

And these SFH

1712690650831.png


Certainly, a determined developer may be able to assemble deep blocks here by going street front to street front, but that's very pricey. The proformas would either require luxury, or a lot more height than we're seeing here, I think.

Midtown Hank said:
Reactive tactical planning as opposed to strategic proactive planning. I don't think we will like where this takes us long term.
Click to expand...

I agree it would be better to proactively lay out changes to the Official Plan rather than do large numbers of one-offs.

I think an over-dependence on development charges, combined with the OLT and a meddling Queen's Park have made this a bit more challenging than it otherwise would be; but getting out in front is important.
 
Last edited:
Midtown Hank said:
I think Montgomery's last words are legit. A site zoned for Neighbourhoods (low rise residential) is being changed to Apartment Neighbourhoods (much higher density). The question of whether this sets off a precedent is legit. The City says they don't believe so, but truth be told, the city knows it will set the precedent and in fact that is exactly what they are looking to do. Not so dissimilar to the adding of 5 to 10 storeys as a minor variances. Reactive tactical planning as opposed to strategic proactive planning. I don't think we will like where this takes us long term.
Click to expand...
All depends on who the "we" are, I guess...?

Our Affordable Housing volunteers are strong supporters of both converting well-located, transit-served sites currently zoned as 'Neighbourhoods' 🟨 (low rise residential) into to 'Apartment Neighbourhoods' 🟧 (much higher density), and we also advise our not-for-profit colleagues on the benefits of adding of 5 to 10 storeys as a minor variances (Not appealable to the OLT).

There has never been "strategic proactive planning" during my 30+ years in Toronto -- there has only ever been "politically-reactive planning" in which the Local Councillor and City Staff treated members of groups like the Annex Residents Association, ABCRA, FoNTRA - and others like they should have privileged hyper-local access to define housing and growth decisions that have city-wide impacts.

The ARA are now fighting this proposed small 11-storey / 64 Unit Residential Condo adjacent to existing apartment neighbourhood lands, with the same "bag of process-blocking tricks" that they have used for decades -- including when they fought against this even smaller 4-storey / 48 unit Purpose-Built Rental (+29 net new apartments) proposal located on Huron about a 10-minute walk away from the Lowther site we are discussing - https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/four-storey-purpose-built-rental-proposed-huron-street.40134

On Huron, ARA related individuals eventually whittled-down the project to a much smaller 2-storey 6-unit purpose-built rental addition, for a net loss of -27 new apartments from the original plan - https://smartdensity.com/661-665-huron-st-infill-laneway-rowhouses/

The system is fundamentally broken, and well-funded Retiree & Ratepayers groups are a HUGE part of the problem in Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top