OCAP advocates for poor ghettos. From a planning point of view, this part of the city needs to decentralize its services and integrate them into other wards across the city. If we are really in a crisis, we could be building better facilities, at a quicker speed, outside the downtown core in neighbourhoods that are safer and healthier for those that need a second chance. While they mean well, OCAP works in opposition to their own cause by fighting for the expansion of the downtown east, which is already a dangerous place to live and certainly not a place people struggling with a drug addiction should be.

A new LGBTQ2 youth homeless shelter is about to open in a neighbourhood rampant with drugs, sexual assault, and crime. How many LGBTQ2 children will be exposed to the drug deals and users that surround them? How many more marginalized people should we advocate to cram into this cesspool of an intersection? Is anyone naive to think that a Steven Holl knock-off is going to cure addiction and mental health issues? Reality check: The courtyard between the proposed buildings will end up with a 10-foot tall fence in front of it before it opens to keep the drug dealers out. It is sad to see all this energy for such an admiral cause go to waste because fundamental planning principles of decentralization and desegregation are blatantly ignored.

Some advice from an experienced planner: Decentralize services. Desegregate marginalized people from one or two city neighbourhoods. Specifically, convince the city to sell off Dan Harison and the houses on Sherbourne Street and appropriate the funds to build new services on less expensive sites in communities that can safely support them and the people they are intended to help. 214-230 Sherbourne will not be purchased by a City that is expecting a 1.35 billion dollar deficit this year. Menkes, Plazacorp, Oben Flats will acquire most of the intersection to protect the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the buildings and planning applications creeping towards Dundas and Sherbourne from all sides.
 
there is much more affordable land in other wards across this city , .. you need to stop centralizing poverty , addiction ,and the violence and damage to private property that come along with crackheads , this is privately owned land [WHICH WILL BE SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER ], that should be combined with that ugly strip mall at the corner , there is a gated condo townhouse development up the block on sherbourne , north of dundas that has worked since being built 30-40 years ago , .. downtown property is so expensive ,that all city property on sherbourne should be sold , and housing and services moved else where.
the above commentary[STUDIOLAND] is so on point about ocap and their determination to ghetto-ize poorer people --''Decentralize services. Desegregate marginalized people from one or two city neighbourhoods. Specifically, convince the city to sell off Dan Harison and the houses on Sherbourne Street and appropriate the funds to build new services on less expensive sites in communities that can safely support them ''
 
doublestandard said:
there is much more affordable land in other wards across this city , .. you need to stop centralizing poverty , addiction ,and the violence and damage to private property that come along with crackheads , this is privately owned land [WHICH WILL BE SOLD TO THE HIGHEST BIDDER ], that should be combined with that ugly strip mall at the corner , there is a gated condo townhouse development up the block on sherbourne , north of dundas that has worked since being built 30-40 years ago , .. downtown property is so expensive ,that all city property on sherbourne should be sold , and housing and services moved else where.
the above commentary[STUDIOLAND] is so on point about ocap and their determination to ghetto-ize poorer people --''Decentralize services. Desegregate marginalized people from one or two city neighbourhoods. Specifically, convince the city to sell off Dan Harison and the houses on Sherbourne Street and appropriate the funds to build new services on less expensive sites in communities that can safely support them ''
Click to expand...

Rather than all-caps (which can be read as yelling), you can highlight items in your post using Italic and Bolding features; and can tag other posters by using the @ sign in front of their user name.
 
To the subject at hand; I have no difficulty with critiques of OCAP who I find to be high on rhetoric and low on productive efforts to help the poor and marginalized.

I also agree that Dan Harrison is problematic in its current form; and that concentrating poverty is not desirable.

All that said, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest there ought to be no low-income people downtown; nor, in fact, will that occur.

Cities all over the world provide affordable housing in their core areas, notwithstanding the value of such real estate.

There is absolutely a need to pursue redevelopment of Dan Harrison, ideally, eliminating the 'rooming house' component, and providing mixed-income on the balance of the site.

But I don't think it makes sense to reduce the RGI-housing available in downtown.

It does make sense to me, as we are able to permanently house people to reduce both the number of and maximum capacity of shelters.
 
hi , in fact i wasnt yelling , sorry about that , ... i completely believe and support mixed income , .. the problems are the concentration of poverty , and simply taking severe addicts [ the pc way of saying] off the street and immediattely housing them , ..anyone ,the richest or poorest needs to be legally dealt with regarding the destruction and damage of property , the northeast corner of dundas and sherbourne stretching a few hundred yards each way needs to be redwveloped , and that stripmall needs to go as well , the stories that are well known of drug deals and hookers in the stairwewlls of 191 shrerboune [private rentals] . no one wants or needs said '' activity'' in and around their home , whether youre paying a mortgage or renting , the rest of the city needs to start sharing the burden of helping the economically unfortunate , and these immediate corners needs to be re-done like regent ;park and alexandra park , and lawrence heights , . and anyone who doesnt respect others or property needs to be evicted , capitalism isnt going anywhere . look at what dundas and jarvis looked like 10 years ago , .. even filmores is gonna be deleted , . .. people will always want to live in the core of the city , and east is the only direction left
 
In a new report to Planning and Housing Committee on March 2nd, the City once again mentions looking at acquiring these properties.

There have been some on-doing discussions w/the owner; but apparently no interest expressed by same in selling to this point.

However, the City is apparently actively seeking funding opportunities to buy this .....'assembly'.

The focus of the new report is redevelopment of the Dan Harrison complex.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-164244.pdf
 
www.thestar.com

Toronto committee turns up the heat on push to buy Sherbourne Street property for housing

Toronto’s planning committee is turning up the temperature on negotiations to purchase privately-owned seven properties on Sherbourne Street that hous...
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com


Toronto’s planning committee is turning up the temperature on negotiations to purchase seven privately owned properties on Sherbourne Street that advocates say need to be expropriated immediately to deal with Toronto’s worsening homelessness crisis.

The committee voted March 2 to recommend that council ask the city’s housing secretariat and real estate management department to find money to purchase or expropriate the lands, and ask Toronto’s arm's-length real estate agency CreateTO to do the same.

The seven properties — located at 214, 218, 220, 222, 224, 226 and 230 Sherbourne — were first identified as good candidates for redevelopment as deeply affordable housing by Toronto council in 2019.

But according to city staff, the owners of the properties — all but one of which are vacant lots — have not been interested in negotiating a purchase agreement.

Because of that, the initial report on larger plans to revitalize the Dundas-Sherbourne streets neighbourhood gave only brief mention of the prospect of purchasing the lands.

That rankled advocates, including the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, which rallied at city hall prior to the meeting of the city’s Planning and Housing Committee.

At the meeting itself, Kate Uffleman, a front-line worker at Regent Park Community services, told members that COVID-19 has exacerbated a housing crisis in the east-end of Toronto’s downtown as elsewhere, and the city needs to move quickly to acquire the lands.

“We need action, and 214-230 Sherbourne Street continues to sit vacant,” she said. “People have been left with nowhere to go — no housing, limited shelters and limited access to indoor drop-in space. This is a crisis and while there are attempts to put Band-Aids on gaping wounds — we need social housing to be built now.”

But city staff said that while moving to expropriate the seven properties to create additional housing might seem like a way to hurry the process along, it would be quicker and possibly less costly to continue to attempt negotiations. An expropriation of the lands would likely take 14 months and could take as long as 18 months, said Abi Bond, executive director of Toronto’s Housing Secretariat.

“Staff consider the fact that negotiation is a much faster way to purchase and acquire property and less costly than expropriation,” she said, and added that if the city were to move ahead with expropriation it would need to have funding identified.

Once that funding is identified — and once council throws its weight behind the decision to move ahead — Bond said it was likely that negotiations would accelerate.

“I would say that council’s support for this report will send a strong signal to the adjacent owners that the city is moving forward on redevelopment,” she said. “They’ll see that change is coming whereas before it may have been vague.”
Click to expand...
 
AlbertC said:
www.thestar.com

Toronto committee turns up the heat on push to buy Sherbourne Street property for housing

Toronto’s planning committee is turning up the temperature on negotiations to purchase privately-owned seven properties on Sherbourne Street that hous...
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com
Click to expand...
Why is the City getting involved in buying downtown development land at full market price ($30 million+ for this site)? This owner is not going to take a dollar less than what it is worth. He has owned it for a very long time and spent great efforts to appeal the Downtown East Planning Study for the sole purpose of selling to a developer. The City should focus on infilling portions of its existing building and property stock, parking lots, TCHC open space etc. This is a pipe dream and waste of everyone's time.
 
YIMBY519 said:
Why is the City getting involved in buying downtown development land at full market price ($30 million+ for this site)? This owner is not going to take a dollar less than what it is worth. He has owned it for a very long time and spent great efforts to appeal the Downtown East Planning Study for the sole purpose of selling to a developer. The City should focus on infilling portions of its existing building and property stock, parking lots, TCHC open space etc. This is a pipe dream and waste of everyone's time.
Click to expand...

The owner has done nothing useful with the site, nor proposed anything useful for years upon years.

The City has a housing crisis.

*****

While I have concerns with additional supportive/rgi housing at a location already dominated by same; I don't think it's reasonable to argue it's a waste of money.

I think a wise move here, would be acquiring the site, but shifting it into the 'Housing Now' program so as to attract a developer's money, a mixed-income site, but on the City's terms, maximizing social benefit.

A focus on new market-rental housing would be welcome, with a portion of units to be deeply affordable.

That would help facilitate the redevelopment of Dan Harrison up the street whose tenants will need to be relocated during same.
 
Last edited:
Stumbled on this thread just now while checking up on what is happening with the properties.

As one of the team involved with the original campaign with OCAP, it was interesting to read all the comments and responses here to the model and vision we had proposed. (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-tower-to-slow-avalanche-of-condominiums.html) To respond to earlier criticisms in this thread, everything we did was completely intended to be a prop for activism - paper architecture to illustrate what we heard from OCAP and the local activist community at a couple of engagement sessions. OCAP, and everyone involved in the sessions understood this, although we should have done better with perhaps an even more abstract style of graphical communication than we had used to make that clear (we were going for a pink + green comic book-ish aesthetic).

Looking back a few years out, while our proposal was impractical/"incompetent", I still think there was value in putting forth an idealistic architectural vision, if nothing else than as a counter-argument to challenge the dominance of market rate development in the city. Also, OCAP related to us that (off-the-record), after our deputations a City official mentioned that it was productive to see a visual representation of what was intended, rather than just being told that there shouldn't be a luxury condo on there (OCAP's approach previously).
------

To return to the present, I still hope that the city acquires the site and puts deeply affordable units there, with all associated housing supports- by whatever mechanisms makes sense, involving not just expert architects but perspectives of grassroots organizations, and those most marginalized (including those living in the Dan Harrison complex who would be relocated for renovation/redevelopment). RGI housing is desperately needed in the area if it's not to be gentrified all together--- and considering the ~80 000 households on the City's affordable housing waiting list. In terms of infill there is a mixed income Housing Now project going up at a Green P parking lot further up Sherbourne --but I think likely with only ~13 (/266 total) deeply affordable units based on the city's definition of "affordable"/CreateTo requirements. So more needs to be done. Market rentals wise, there are many units that have gone up north on Sherbourne as well (priced around $2000-3000), and plenty of market rate developments just a bit further south that can accommodate those with more means to choose where they live.
 
JadedIdealist said:
Stumbled on this thread just now while checking up on what is happening with the properties.

As one of the team involved with the original campaign with OCAP, it was interesting to read all the comments and responses here to the model and vision we had proposed. (https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-tower-to-slow-avalanche-of-condominiums.html) To respond to earlier criticisms in this thread, everything we did was completely intended to be a prop for activism - paper architecture to illustrate what we heard from OCAP and the local activist community at a couple of engagement sessions. OCAP, and everyone involved in the sessions understood this, although we should have done better with perhaps an even more abstract style of graphical communication than we had used to make that clear (we were going for a pink + green comic book-ish aesthetic).

Looking back a few years out, while our proposal was impractical/"incompetent", I still think there was value in putting forth an idealistic architectural vision, if nothing else than as a counter-argument to challenge the dominance of market rate development in the city. Also, OCAP related to us that (off-the-record), after our deputations a City official mentioned that it was productive to see a visual representation of what was intended, rather than just being told that there shouldn't be a luxury condo on there (OCAP's approach previously).
------

To return to the present, I still hope that the city acquires the site and puts deeply affordable units there, with all associated housing supports- by whatever mechanisms makes sense, involving not just expert architects but perspectives of grassroots organizations, and those most marginalized (including those living in the Dan Harrison complex who would be relocated for renovation/redevelopment). RGI housing is desperately needed in the area if it's not to be gentrified all together--- and considering the ~80 000 households on the City's affordable housing waiting list. In terms of infill there is a mixed income Housing Now project going up at a Green P parking lot further up Sherbourne --but I think likely with only ~13 (/266 total) deeply affordable units based on the city's definition of "affordable"/CreateTo requirements. So more needs to be done. Market rentals wise, there are many units that have gone up north on Sherbourne as well (priced around $2000-3000), and plenty of market rate developments just a bit further south that can accommodate those with more means to choose where they live.
Click to expand...

Welcome to UrbanToronto.

A good first contribution!

I'll stand by my post above that I too think the City should acquire the site. But I like the 'Housing Now 'model with a mix of affordable and market housing here.

I think that would be of benefit to the neighbourhood and people across a range of the income spectrum.

I recognize the need for far more affordable housing, across the City, including this community.

But also feel strongly that the area would benefit from some market tenants; with that benefit extending to many low-income community members.

It also strikes me that the mixed income model is less likely to provoke feisty opposition, making it easier to get through.

But others will differ in their perspective, which is entirely fair!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
Northern Light said:
Welcome to UrbanToronto.

A good first contribution!

I'll stand by my post above that I too think the City should acquire the site. But I like the 'Housing Now 'model with a mix of affordable and market housing here.

I think that would be of benefit to the neighbourhood and people across a range of the income spectrum.

I recognize the need for far more affordable housing, across the City, including this community.

But also feel strongly that the area would benefit from some market tenants; with that benefit extending to many low-income community members.

It also strikes me that the mixed income model is less likely to provoke feisty opposition, making it easier to get through.

But others will differ in their perspective, which is entirely fair!
Click to expand...
I am also in favour of mixed neighbourhoods and, partly for that reason, live in St Lawrence but the Sherbourne & Dundas area is very 'challenging' and attracting 'market tenants' to live there and share it with those already living there will not be easy. It will be difficult, but it IS possible.
 
Article from the CBC today:



A city councillor and community members in Toronto's gritty downtown east side are in a race against time to get the city to turn a vacant parcel of land into affordable, supportive housing — before it's sold to condo developers in a matter of days.

Coun. Kristyn Wong-Tam says the area around Dundas and Sherbourne streets could one day look more like the St. Lawrence Market neighbourhood, a more vibrant, mixed-income area a few blocks to the south.

"This is a troubled neighbourhood," Wong-Tam, who represents Ward 13, Toronto Centre, told CBC News.

"Sherbourne and Dundas can look only to their neighbour to the south to see what a successful, inclusive, healthy neighbourhood it could be."

Toronto's downtown east side is anything but healthy and successful right now. It's wracked by homelessness and a drug crisis, both worsened by the pandemic. But Wong-Tam says the right mix of affordable housing, co-ops and retail can unlock its potential and buying a large parcel of land sitting near that intersection presents an opportunity.

The problem is the owner has refused earlier attempts from the city to buy it, and now the property is being marketed to developers as an opportunity to build a condo tower.

"High Rise Development Opportunity at Sherbourne & Dundas," reads the listing from Colliers, a real estate and investment management company. There is no asking price. Bids will be accepted on Friday.

Wong-Tam has asked city staff to look at the feasibility of the city purchasing the property. A report is expected to be ready for council to debate at its meeting on Wednesday, with enough time, if approved, to make an offer on Friday.

"It can kick off the Sherbourne and Dundas revitalization, help bring in prosperity, inclusive city building and design. Affordable housing is going to be key to making this neighbourhood safer and healthier for all," she said.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top