AlbertC

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
22,283
Reaction score
60,170
City:
Toronto

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca


208 BARTLETT AVE
Ward 9: Davenport

To construct a new three-storey detached building with front and rear balconies on the second and third floors. There will be ten dwelling units on the lot. The existing two-storey semi-detached building, one-storey semi-detached dwelling and rear detached garage will be demolished.


For the SW corner of Bartlett and Hallam, a couple blocks east of Dufferin:


208art.JPG
208art2.JPG
 
The idea of this proposal is a sound one.

Aesthetically, I'd like to see the 'front door' a rendered, landscaping will matter, and it could use a bit more detail on it. But its basically solid.

However, A ~9m/30ft building is going to draw some issues. Yes, we all know it probably shouldn't. But here's the thing....if you sunk the ground floor just 3ft, it falls almost into line w/the neighbours.

Removing the on-street parking immediately adjacent on Bartlett in favour of a row of trees in a boulevard would probably ingratiate some to this as well; and it would just look better too.
 
Here is the link to their website if you find QR codes annoying: https://docs.google.com/document/d/...fhMYzrqjnPEZHcbOSXHn0_aNkhlYezgLU9iSdT4iv/pub

I've screengrabbed the first part of the notice. The people who have created this Google page have not identified themselves anywhere - a cowardly move. The suggested list of complaints are petty and anti-urban - noise, parking (they want *more* parking!), VIEW, "incompatability with community."

The notice starts off with boilerplate about how they support new housing, but it's just empty words - this is new housing and you *don't* support it!

This is the sort of "missing middle" that Toronto needs more of, and these people are "concerned" about it. I hope Shawn Micallef or Alex Bozikovic get wind of this and put these people on blast.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2023-07-26 at 10.05.47 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2023-07-26 at 10.05.47 AM.png
    124.4 KB · Views: 33
Parkdalian said:
Here is the link to their website if you find QR codes annoying: https://docs.google.com/document/d/...fhMYzrqjnPEZHcbOSXHn0_aNkhlYezgLU9iSdT4iv/pub

I've screengrabbed the first part of the notice. The people who have created this Google page have not identified themselves anywhere - a cowardly move. The suggested list of complaints are petty and anti-urban - noise, parking (they want *more* parking!), VIEW, "incompatability with community."

The notice starts off with boilerplate about how they support new housing, but it's just empty words - this is new housing and you *don't* support it!

This is the sort of "missing middle" that Toronto needs more of, and these people are "concerned" about it. I hope Shawn Micallef or Alex Bozikovic get wind of this and put these people on blast.
Click to expand...

From the above link:

1690384961916.png


1) Nonsense

2) The units are very small, so this is deceptive, I might agree it would be nice to see larger units, but if you went to say, 2 per floor, and a six-unit design; but that wouldn't change the ft2, which is not out of line at all.

3) What view? Seriously?

4) BS

5) How can there be a material effect on traffic w/no parking?

6) This is the only one (privacy/sunlight) that I can really understand; and it's easily addressed by sinking the at-grade floor by 3 ft, as I noted above.

7) Not an issue

8) Not the developer's issue, and given that the units are not a family-friendly size, immaterial.

Grade Score 0.5/8 legitimate complaints, Zero legitimate solutions, Grade F
 
Parkdalian said:
Here is the link to their website if you find QR codes annoying: https://docs.google.com/document/d/...fhMYzrqjnPEZHcbOSXHn0_aNkhlYezgLU9iSdT4iv/pub

I've screengrabbed the first part of the notice. The people who have created this Google page have not identified themselves anywhere - a cowardly move. The suggested list of complaints are petty and anti-urban - noise, parking (they want *more* parking!), VIEW, "incompatability with community."

The notice starts off with boilerplate about how they support new housing, but it's just empty words - this is new housing and you *don't* support it!

This is the sort of "missing middle" that Toronto needs more of, and these people are "concerned" about it. I hope Shawn Micallef or Alex Bozikovic get wind of this and put these people on blast.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. Wasn't planning on doing anything until I saw the ridiculousness of this NIMBY effort, which has prompted me to write both the CoA and Councillor with my strong support.
 
Northern Light said:
From the above link:

View attachment 495183

1) Nonsense

2) The units are very small, so this is deceptive, I might agree it would be nice to see larger units, but if you went to say, 2 per floor, and a six-unit design; but that wouldn't change the ft2, which is not out of line at all.

3) What view? Seriously?

4) BS

5) How can there be a material effect on traffic w/no parking?

6) This is the only one (privacy/sunlight) that I can really understand; and its easily addressed by sinking the at-grade floor by 3 ft, as I noted above.

7) Not an issue

8) Not the developer's issue, and given that the units are not a family-friendly size, immaterial.

Grade Score 0.5/8 legitimate complaints, Zero legitimate solutions, Grade F
Click to expand...
Even the sunlight isn’t an issue. It’s north of their neighbour so unless the earth flips upside down there is no shadow impact. Not tall enough to shade the far sidewalk.
 
goodcity said:
Even the sunlight isn’t an issue. It’s north of their neighbour so unless the earth flips upside down there is no shadow impact. Not tall enough to shade the far sidewalk.
Click to expand...

Quite right; but privacy/overlook is an arguably legitimate issue. It's certainly not severe in this proposal, but as I noted, lowering the at-grade level slightly make it more or less the same height as the neighbour, so why not. Shouln't add materially to cost.
 
Someone has submitted a 13 page objection letter, complete with numerous photos. Unfortunately, they've misread the plans and have imagined a brick wall that doesn't exist. I've approximated the location of their "red box" on the submitted plans, and highlighted the existing building.
Screenshot 2023-07-31 211115.png
1690852400864.png

1690852772645.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top