[Northern Light]

This one was before the June meeting of City Council as a Settlement Offer, part of a package of three with the abutting Canadian Tire and Main Square sites.

I will start with the high level link to access all the offers:

Agenda Item History 2024.CC19.16

Agenda Item History 2024.CC19.16

secure.toronto.ca

From there, the overall site plan across the three sites:

Then the Settlement Offer specific to this site:

And more...........


Highlights: The new Parkland arrangement is much more sensible if still a bit small, and 26 units of affordable housing for a 40-year term @HousingNowTO and Max. Height up to 59s

 

[Paclo]

The database has been updated to reflect the settlement proposal. No new renderings. The rendering currently in the database reflects the previous 55-storey design.

 

[nimby407]

The new park looks like it is going to be pretty dark!

 

[DevDudeToronto]

The new park looks like it is going to be pretty dark!

God forbid, some parks might have shade! The horror of it all. Better not build any more housing in Toronto since all buildings cast shadows! Hopefully soon someone can invent a completely transparent building.

 

[Northern Light]

God forbid, some parks might have shade! The horror of it all. Better not build any more housing in Toronto since all buildings cast shadows! Hopefully soon someone can invent a completely transparent building.

Can we please not do this? Most trees, shrubs and flowers don't grow in shade. Additionally, people like sun, especially when the weather is cool. The density proposed here is quite extreme, the park is quite small. The case made is not a NIMBY one, but simply an observation that the park could have been better sized/sited, because the development proposed to its south, east and west will limit sunshine and warmth. There really is not point in building a unappealing park that people don't enjoy, because its cold, windy and barren.

The idea that anyone who likes Parks or doesn't want to appear goth is NIMBY is both intellectually unsound, and needlessly insulting towards other members of UT.

 

[DevDudeToronto]

Can we please not do this? Most trees, shrubs and flowers don't grow in shade. Additionally, people like sun, especially when the weather is cool. The density proposed here is quite extreme, the park is quite small. The case made is not a NIMBY one, but simply an observation that the park could have been better sized/sited, because the development proposed to its south, east and west will limit sunshine and warmth. There really is not point in building a unappealing park that people don't enjoy, because its cold, windy and barren.

The idea that anyone who likes Parks or doesn't want to appear goth is NIMBY is both intellectually unsound, and needlessly insulting towards other members of UT.

Yaaaa, I politely disagree with this sentiment. I was just making a joke about the extremes this city goes to when they'll literally prioritize preventing a park from being slightly shaded for a brief period of day over literally building much needed housing.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is Canada. We have an extreme housing crisis. We need housing. Yes we also need parks, but I'll take a park with shade any day over having my rent double every five years.

And speaking of this being Canada, are we just ignoring the fact that it IS shady and overcast basically the majority of the year. There are absolutely shrubs and various greenery that thrives in shade. This whole obsession with shade free parks is ridiculous in my opinion. This is a city, it has tall buildings that cast shade.

 

[Northern Light]

Yaaaa, I politely disagree with this sentiment. I was just making a joke about the extremes this city goes to when they'll literally prioritize preventing a park from being slightly shaded for a brief period of day over literally building much needed housing.

Except that this is not at all true. The City does permit parks to be shaded, particularly in summer (shadow studies look at March, June, Sept, and Dec). The City largely concerns itself with March/Sept, and looks at the total amount of shadow, the accretive impact (how much more shadow than now) and the precedent, (what if we add 10 more buildings like this that that add similar amounts of shadow).

There is no prohibition on shadowing a portion of a park for 15 minutes a day, not now, not ever. Lets keep to the facts please.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is Canada. We have an extreme housing crisis. We need housing. Yes we also need parks, but I'll take a park with shade any day over having my rent double every five years.

Toronto has approved and built more housing than anywhere else in North America in the last decade. Period. There are........repeat after me, 150,000 approved housing units not currently under construction. There is no shortage of approved housing.

Parks have in no way impeded approvals or construction. Low incomes, and high interest rates are doing that.

There are actions we could take to reduce rents within months, by dramatically reducing the number of TFWs and Foreign students. That could literally see rents tumble 25% without one new unit built.

But we can't force developers to build those 150,000 units (in the City proper alone) that have their approvals already.

And speaking of this being Canada, are we just ignoring the fact that it IS shady and overcast basically the majority of the year. There are absolutely shrubs and various greenery that thrives in shade.

As someone who is literally an expert in plants, you are wrong. There are only 2 shade tolerant native tree species in Toronto, Sugar Maple, and Basswood. There are another 1/2 dozen shrubs, Red Elderberry, Purple Flowering Raspberry, Chokecherry, Bladdernut and Alternate-Leaf Dogwood. There are dozens of others that require a minimum level of sun.

This whole obsession with shade free parks is ridiculous in my opinion. This is a city, it has tall buildings that cast shade.

With respect. I think your assertion here is ridiculous. Its inconsistent with good science and unpopular. I would not want to live in a City you designed.

 

[nimby407]

Yaaaa, I politely disagree with this sentiment. I was just making a joke about the extremes this city goes to when they'll literally prioritize preventing a park from being slightly shaded for a brief period of day over literally building much needed housing.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is Canada. We have an extreme housing crisis. We need housing. Yes we also need parks, but I'll take a park with shade any day over having my rent double every five years.

And speaking of this being Canada, are we just ignoring the fact that it IS shady and overcast basically the majority of the year. There are absolutely shrubs and various greenery that thrives in shade. This whole obsession with shade free parks is ridiculous in my opinion. This is a city, it has tall buildings that cast shade.

Might as well install pavers across the whole "park" and create a place for people to stand quietly in the shade. I'm very pro development and also strongly critical of the mismanagement of the Parks department. Although I appreciate that the developers have consolidated a park to create something larger than a laneway, there needs to be more thoughtful planning to create spaces that could support growth of vegetation and create neighborhoods that people enjoy.

 

[DevDudeToronto]

Except that this is not at all true. The City does permit parks to be shaded, particularly in summer (shadow studies look at March, June, Sept, and Dec). The City largely concerns itself with March/Sept, and looks at the total amount of shadow, the accretive impact (how much more shadow than now) and the precedent, (what if we add 10 more buildings like this that that add similar amounts of shadow).

There is no prohibition on shadowing a portion of a park for 15 minutes a day, not now, not ever. Lets keep to the facts please.



Toronto has approved and built more housing than anywhere else in North America in the last decade. Period. There are........repeat after me, 150,000 approved housing units not currently under construction. There is no shortage of approved housing.

Parks have in no way impeded approvals or construction. Low incomes, and high interest rates are doing that.

There are actions we could take to reduce rents within months, by dramatically reducing the number of TFWs and Foreign students. That could literally see rents tumble 25% without one new unit built.

But we can't force developers to build those 150,000 units (in the City proper alone) that have their approvals already.



As someone who is literally an expert in plants, you are wrong. There are only 2 shade tolerant native tree species in Toronto, Sugar Maple, and Basswood. There are another 1/2 dozen shrubs, Red Elderberry, Purple Flowering Raspberry, Chokecherry, Bladdernut and Alternate-Leaf Dogwood. There are dozens of others that require a minimum level of sun.



With respect. I think your assertion here is ridiculous. Its inconsistent with good science and unpopular. I would not want to live in a City you designed.

I mean.... You say I'm wrong and then you proceed to literally prove my point by listing shade tolerant trees and shrubs.

You also say that it hasn't had an impact on approvals, but it has absolutely had an impact on *what* has been approved. And what has been approved is not economically viable.

Also, there can be well used parks without a lot of greenery. Look at college park. No, it's not ideal, but it's constantly in use and serves a purpose.

Look, there's a lot of points I agree with you on, and I am probably being overly dramatic about approvals and shade. But I have seen first hand projects being encomically unviable due to the planning department argue for height reductions due to casting shade on a park. And I'm not talking 50 storeys down to like 30. It was more like a 20 storey down to 15. And things like that absolutely kill a project when there's other shifts in the economy (like interest rate hikes).

 

[nimby407]

I mean.... You say I'm wrong and then you proceed to literally prove my point by listing shade tolerant trees and shrubs.

You also say that it hasn't had an impact on approvals, but it has absolutely had an impact on *what* has been approved. And what has been approved is not economically viable.

Also, there can be well used parks without a lot of greenery. Look at college park. No, it's not ideal, but it's constantly in use and serves a purpose.

Look, there's a lot of points I agree with you on, and I am probably being overly dramatic about approvals and shade. But I have seen first hand projects being encomically unviable due to the planning department argue for height reductions due to casting shade on a park. And I'm not talking 50 storeys down to like 30. It was more like a 20 storey down to 15. And things like that absolutely kill a project when there's other shifts in the economy (like interest rate hikes).

My comments aren't necessarily aimed at the developer(s). If you take a step back, the massive redevelopment of Main and Dawes was an opportunity for the city to be proactive. Why not identify this node for intensification and use the massive Parks war chest to procure the best location for a park. They could collect the fees from developers to fund the purchase of the park. Maybe this strategy could create a nice park instead of shoe-horning a park between a labyrinth of high-rise buildings.

 

[maestro]

Yaaaa, I politely disagree with this sentiment. I was just making a joke about the extremes this city goes to when they'll literally prioritize preventing a park from being slightly shaded for a brief period of day over literally building much needed housing.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is Canada. We have an extreme housing crisis. We need housing. Yes we also need parks, but I'll take a park with shade any day over having my rent double every five years.

And speaking of this being Canada, are we just ignoring the fact that it IS shady and overcast basically the majority of the year. There are absolutely shrubs and various greenery that thrives in shade. This whole obsession with shade free parks is ridiculous in my opinion. This is a city, it has tall buildings that cast shade.

Toronto has an affordability crisis. More development is going to increase construction costs even higher. Developers aren't in the practice to renting below costs or building too much housing yielding opportunistic rents

The housing crisis a lame argument to support building a subpar dense residential community of tall towers because of a transit station and in a neighbourhood with overcrowded resources and little employment opportunities. We're effectively doubling down on Main Square density when most experts prescribe the hyperdensity concept as the reason this community never reached desirability.

I don't know what happened to planning in this city. All I can say is that I hope they're right and I'm wrong.

 

[Hyperreal.Edwin]

Yaaaa, I politely disagree with this sentiment. I was just making a joke about the extremes this city goes to when they'll literally prioritize preventing a park from being slightly shaded for a brief period of day over literally building much needed housing.

Let's not kid ourselves, this is Canada. We have an extreme housing crisis. We need housing. Yes we also need parks, but I'll take a park with shade any day over having my rent double every five years.

And speaking of this being Canada, are we just ignoring the fact that it IS shady and overcast basically the majority of the year. There are absolutely shrubs and various greenery that thrives in shade. This whole obsession with shade free parks is ridiculous in my opinion. This is a city, it has tall buildings that cast shade.

I somewhat agree as there's also a very big park right across the train tracks that is very underutilized. So, yes this park should be better but I am not up in arms about an overly shaded park, as there is quite a big park a 5 minute walk away

 

[Northern Light]

I somewhat agree as there's also a very big park right across the train tracks that is very underutilized

It is? I think its fully booked for baseball most of the time.

Obviously its quiet in the middle of a work day, but that's hardly useful when people are at work/school. Its evenings and weekends that matter.

. So, yes this park should be better but I am not up in arms about an overly shaded park, as there is quite a big park a 5 minute walk away

A park that is uphill over a bridge............yes.........but again......we're talking about adding thousands of people, the amount of parkland per capita is well below the Canadian norm for an urban area.

Just for comparison sake.......Brampton's standard of service for parks is 4 acres per thousand people, that, in this area, would consume every single inch of the block.

Toronto's lower standard of 28m2 per person would still be materially larger than what is contemplated. (about 4x)

Lets add, this is just the proposals you know about.....Main-Dawes, south side.

Redevelopment is coming to the Sobeys site, the complex across from the KFC, to Shopper's World (that will be huge, but is a bit further off) ..........

 

[Hyperreal.Edwin]

It is? I think its fully booked for baseball most of the time.

Obviously its quiet in the middle of a work day, but that's hardly useful when people are at work/school. Its evenings and weekends that matter.



A park that is uphill over a bridge............yes.........but again......we're talking about adding thousands of people, the amount of parkland per capita is well below the Canadian norm for an urban area.

Just for comparison sake.......Brampton's standard of service for parks is 4 acres per thousand people, that, in this area, would consume every single inch of the block.

Toronto's lower standard of 28m2 per person would still be materially larger than what is contemplated. (about 4x)

Lets add, this is just the proposals you know about.....Main-Dawes, south side.

Redevelopment is coming to the Sobeys site, the complex across from the KFC, to Shopper's World (that will be huge, but is a bit further off) ..........

I see it used maybe a third of evenings for baseball and rarely see pedestrian usage of it. You have a fair point about per capita parkland. I think the disagreements we have comes down to what types of sacrifice I'm okay with. Less parkland is okay with me if it means this much housing. I would like the balance of maybe closer and better access to Taylor Creek off of the north end of eastdale considering all the density around there and the fact that it's 10ish minutes walk from this development. That would be a balance I would be perfectly okay with.

 

[Hyperreal.Edwin]

I see it used maybe a third of evenings for baseball and rarely see pedestrian usage of it. You have a fair point about per capita parkland. I think the disagreements we have comes down to what types of sacrifice I'm okay with. Less parkland is okay with me if it means this much housing. I would like the balance of maybe closer and better access to Taylor Creek off of the north end of eastdale considering all the density around there and the fact that it's 10ish minutes walk from this development. That would be a balance I would be perfectly okay with.

Also a bigger park as a part of shoppers world redevelopment would be great too to be fair I'm definitely more neutral on this topic as I did not know about the development pipeline that is probably going to come to shoppers world and the plaza across from kfc