When I went to U of T years ago I lived right at Spadina & Bloor. It's a lovely area and I don't think 40 stories is appropriate for the area. 25 stories should be the general top end for this area.
 
I also live in the area and I'm of two minds about this proposal. Obviously it is far bigger than anything else nearby and would likely trigger numerous other 40+ story buildings around this intersection. And it is a crap design to boot. If developers are going to propose a building so beyond the current context, they really should make at least a token effort at offering something unique or interesting.

But I've also seen a developer - Westbank - do just that at Bathurst and Bloor, and my neighbours have spent two years screaming bloody murder about their proposal too. It becomes a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. If the neighbourhood vociferously opposes every single development, including the great ones, in my mind it becomes a question of whether admittedly imperfect and improper densification, like this proposal, is better than no densification at all. Because there is an enormous deadweight loss with the status quo. Tons of people would love to live in this neighbourhood, to say nothing of the UofT students who today are paying exorbitant sums for basement apartments in the area because supply is so low. And while Spadina and Bloor has two subway lines, a streetcar AND is walking distance to most things a person could need, each corner of the intersection has a 2 or 3 story building. It's absolutely maddening.

If I could wave a magic wand, my ideal outcome would be for Spadina and Bloor to peak at 25-30 stories with decent developments (like Exhibit, 1Thousand Bay, Sixty Colborne, 88 Queen East, etc), but also have developments in the 10-25 range along the entirety of Bloor between St. George and Spadina (so including this site at 316, the partial redevelopment of UTS, and the Bahai centre). Wasn't there a proposal for a 38 story redevelopment of the Bloor United Church at Walmer? Make it 15-20 and contextually sensitive and that's fine by me too. The Westbank site at Bathurst should peak at about 25 stories on the corner, with 10-15ish story buildings replacing the ghastly Pizza Pizza and CIBC buildings on the north corners. Redevelopment on Bloor between Spadina and Bathurst should be densified by going from the current 3 story envelope to 4-7, depending on the location within the block. And you could sustain this type of densification - 10-20 stories at Subway stops, with 4-7 story buildings in between - all the way along Bloor as far as the eye can see.

The question for me is whether to hold out hope of a sensible, sensitive densification plan in the area, or accept that this will never come to fruition and that plopping a couple bland 40 story towers near Bloor/Spadina is at least better than the status quo.
 
I actually now am living on Madison, in a house converted to an apartment, not in this block, but in the next one up.

I don't have a big problem with the density on this particular lot. I do dislike the design, both with or without squares.

Between Walmer and St. George, to me, height and density along Bloor is not a problem. However, I am very much with @interchange42 about preserving the charming restaurant and shopping strip between Walmer and Bathurst, which is one of the best examples in the city of thriving retail with thin commercial frontages in older, much of it Victorian, building stock. It's certainly a large part of what keeps me living in the area. I wonder if there should be a HCD study for this strip before it's too late.
 
One could argue that the density is appropriate for a dvelopment in close proximity to the intersection of two subway lines and a grade-separated streetcar line.
 
Higher densities around subway lines makes sense. It makes a lot less sense having it all concentrated on one development site.

I've been on the forums since UT's inception. Height has always been the main attraction. I've seen every rationalization to support a tower proposal that is twice or three times as tall and dense as a neighbourhood's built form. Is there even a parking lot out there not suitable for a super tall? Once built, this is followed up by the tower looking lonely in the skyline and needing even taller friends. Taller and denser ubiquitous developments overshadowing the character of our downtown communities is not my Utopian vision for the future of Toronto.
 
carrythezero said:
I also live in the area and I'm of two minds about this proposal. Obviously it is far bigger than anything else nearby and would likely trigger numerous other 40+ story buildings around this intersection. And it is a crap design to boot. If developers are going to propose a building so beyond the current context, they really should make at least a token effort at offering something unique or interesting.

But I've also seen a developer - Westbank - do just that at Bathurst and Bloor, and my neighbours have spent two years screaming bloody murder about their proposal too. It becomes a boy-who-cried-wolf problem. If the neighbourhood vociferously opposes every single development, including the great ones, in my mind it becomes a question of whether admittedly imperfect and improper densification, like this proposal, is better than no densification at all. Because there is an enormous deadweight loss with the status quo. Tons of people would love to live in this neighbourhood, to say nothing of the UofT students who today are paying exorbitant sums for basement apartments in the area because supply is so low. And while Spadina and Bloor has two subway lines, a streetcar AND is walking distance to most things a person could need, each corner of the intersection has a 2 or 3 story building. It's absolutely maddening.

If I could wave a magic wand, my ideal outcome would be for Spadina and Bloor to peak at 25-30 stories with decent developments (like Exhibit, 1Thousand Bay, Sixty Colborne, 88 Queen East, etc), but also have developments in the 10-25 range along the entirety of Bloor between St. George and Spadina (so including this site at 316, the partial redevelopment of UTS, and the Bahai centre). Wasn't there a proposal for a 38 story redevelopment of the Bloor United Church at Walmer? Make it 15-20 and contextually sensitive and that's fine by me too. The Westbank site at Bathurst should peak at about 25 stories on the corner, with 10-15ish story buildings replacing the ghastly Pizza Pizza and CIBC buildings on the north corners. Redevelopment on Bloor between Spadina and Bathurst should be densified by going from the current 3 story envelope to 4-7, depending on the location within the block. And you could sustain this type of densification - 10-20 stories at Subway stops, with 4-7 story buildings in between - all the way along Bloor as far as the eye can see.

The question for me is whether to hold out hope of a sensible, sensitive densification plan in the area, or accept that this will never come to fruition and that plopping a couple bland 40 story towers near Bloor/Spadina is at least better than the status quo.
Click to expand...


You can't compare this to Westbank's proposal which, while tall, makes every effort to lessen its impact. It isn't nearly as tall or as dense (by appearance.. don't know the actual data.) as this one either.
 
maestro said:
You can't compare this to Westbank's proposal which, while tall, makes every effort to lessen it's impact. It isn't nearly as tall or as dense (by appearance.. don't know the actual data.) as this one either.
Click to expand...

Right, I agree, they are night and day. But what I'm saying is that when the community ardently opposes both great projects like Westbank and crap projects like this one, what incentive does that give for developers to even propose great projects? Why not just propose a cheap pile and hope to get lucky at the OMB?

I think there is an urgent need to densify along our transit corridors and especially at hubs like Bloor and Spadina. Of course I'd want another Westbank on this site. But if that isn't in the cards, I'd settle for a bland high rise (even if it is an overbuild) rather than leaving such an important hub so underdeveloped.
 
In my opinion Bloor's value is really in its businesses, not the buildings. There are a few nice structures but the majority of buildings along Bloor are valueless and even ugly. I'm not sure how it can be done, but the city and BIAs should focus on preserving affordable retail spaces for these small businesses as development is inevitable along such a major artery.
 
carrythezero said:

Right, I agree, they are night and day. But what I'm saying is that when the community ardently opposes both great projects like Westbank and crap projects like this one, what incentive does that give for developers to even propose great projects? Why not just propose a cheap pile and hope to get lucky at the OMB?

I think there is an urgent need to densify along our transit corridors and especially at hubs like Bloor and Spadina. Of course I'd want another Westbank on this site. But if that isn't in the cards, I'd settle for a bland high rise (even if it is an overbuild) rather than leaving such an important hub so underdeveloped.
Click to expand...

I'm not one to settle. NIMBYism in the form of a community action group is a non issue. What should be of concern is a proposal like this being debated rather than immediately thrown out and fear of the OMB overturning a ruling. The OMB isn't necessarily at fault either. It's our zoning. I'd gladly trade the openness of our process to one where planners can say, "sorry, too big" and be done with it without any fear of an appeal.
 
maestro said:
I'm not one to settle. NIMBYism in the form of a community action group is a non issue. What should be of concern is a proposal like this being debated rather than immediately thrown out and fear of the OMB overturning a ruling. The OMB isn't necessarily at fault either. It's our zoning. I'd gladly trade the openness of our process to one where planners can say, "sorry, too big" and be done with it without any fear of an appeal.
Click to expand...

Funny because I find that utterly terrifying.
 
As I noted in another thread recently, Planning turned down 18 Yorkville way back when. That seems crazy to me, and I expect most UTers would say so too… and I am glad there was recourse for the developer. The last thing I would want would be to give one side final say without the chance of appeal. Here at Bloor and Madison, I want the other outcome, but I still believe that both sides should get to argue their case, not making it too easy for the City to say no and not too easy for a developer to build whatever they dream up.

42
 
Mediated settlement at the OMB - per Joe Cressy's website

http://www.joecressy.com/316_bloor_street_joint_letter

Details of the settlement include:
- A 29-storey tower with a maximum height of 98 metres (including amenity/mechanical penthouse) containing a 6-storey, 18.65 metre base building
- A limiting distance agreement that will ensure adequate building separation and restrict development on the rest of the block
- A maximum tower floor plate of 795 square metres for the 29-storey tower starting on top of the 8th storey amenity floor
- The provision of a minimum of 1,011 square metres of indoor and 363 square metres of outdoor amenity space located on base building and tower floors 3, 8 and the roof top level.
- A minimum of 30% of the residential units in the building will be 2 and 3-bedroom units.
 
If I were a land owner further west, this would be concerning: "A limiting distance agreement that will ensure adequate building separation and restrict development on the rest of the block".
 
ProjectEnd said:
If I were a land owner further west, this would be concerning: "A limiting distance agreement that will ensure adequate building separation and restrict development on the rest of the block".
Click to expand...

Unless they own the rest of the block how could this be enforceable?
 
I'd ask the rest of the owners at Bathurst and Bloor who have been neutered as a result of Westbank and the Four Corners Study. You are correct though, I'm interested to see how this works legally.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top