Big Daddy said:
I used to work for a development company and I remember a time we applied for approval to build a plaza on a great piece of land on a major roadway (no specifics). The city initially liked the proposal and also agreed with our request for a signalized access point – provided, of course, that we pay for everything even remotely related to this improvement. We were okay with this, but then the city demanded that we allow the adjacent plaza access over and through our proposed development to the adjacent plaza to provide them with better access. This would have doubled the traffic crossing our site, allow our neighbours to cannibalize our parking and added substantially to the size and cost of this improvement – but with no contribution from the adjacent plaza owners – who, as it turned out, was a very good friend of the then mayor. We objected to the proposed changes and swiftly found our project rejected for reasons that came out of the blue and had no basis in the zoning or OPA requirements (yes you can appeal to the OMB but the cost of lawyers, engineers and planners as well as the year long delay is greater than the cost of the “requested†chnges). Coincidentally, two of our other projects were suddenly stricken with “city hall flu†and were being refused as well. This of course caused (read “forcedâ€) us to reconsider and adjust our plans to accommodate our neighbours and suddenly our projects proceeded quite smoothly.

The moral is, never underestimate the power of city hall to get what they want whether it be supported by zoning provisions or good planning principals or padding the pockets of those in control of said processes.

I believe in good sound planning principals, but far too often they are simply used as an “extraction†tool.
Click to expand...

In a sense, boo hoo. It was your company who wanted to develop a piece of land in isolation when one of the most fundamental 'planning principles' is connectivity. Any reasonable city which is not entirely wedded to the automobile would reject what you had proposed, so really it was you guys who f**ed up by bringing something of this nature to the table (even lip service to this idea would have gotten further than arguing against it).

What's more, re: the 'cannibalized' parking, those spaces only have to be constructed as a minimum. If you build them as part of your development, you've done your due diligence and therefore can't be rejected on the grounds that others might use them.

Mongo said:
So you don't think that this project will eventually get approved pretty much as is, with the main change being more money being "donated" to the local community? What I have been saying is that the City uses its power to approve or reject a given proposal, in order to squeeze as much money from the developer as they will tolerate without going to the OMB, said money to be spent on the local neighbourhood. At no point did I say that the City employees were corrupt or taking part of the money for themselves, but they ARE using their legal authority to extract as much money as possible from the developers for the community, using morally dubious techniques such as withholding approvals until the developer caves and agrees to additional donations beyond the required section 37 payments. And given the multitude of restrictive bylaws and requirements that any development must legally follow -- the regulations are so restrictive than most major developments will inevitably break them -- it is quite easy for the City planners to produce a list of violations sufficient to disallow the project, unless the developer agrees to pay additional money to the community in compensation for the City ignoring the violations.

As I said, classic dictatorship techniques: create a long list of regulations that most people would inevitably be forced to break as part of daily life, and then selectively enforce those regulations in order to get what they want (obedience to the government for a dictatorship, additional money for community improvements for the City).
Click to expand...

No.

And if you believe that that's all it will take then you're sorely mistaken. As I said and others have corroborated, Toronto's planning process is quite transparent and beneficial to the city. If it were some sort of mob dictatorship as you suggest, why would the city hold community consultations, publish planning reports, commission secondary plans and generally make a public stink when a developer wants to build something hugely out of scale with what's around (eg. the development on which this thread is based).

Developers want to build here and most of them realize that the donation clauses built into the Planning Act are good for the city. Developers are generally good people who really want to create a better city by integrating their projects as best as they can. They realize that they come out looking all the better for endorsing things like Sec. 37 and that fighting against them not only makes them look bad, it gets their project a swift kick in the derriere.

Mike in TO had a great post about why zoning laws and the like are artificially low awhile back. Your principles are correct (eg. using authority to extract money from developers), but since both sides agree that this benefits everyone, the idea that this is some nefarious plot on the part of the city is as absurd as it sounds.
 
ProjectEnd said:
In a sense, boo hoo. It was your company who wanted to develop a piece of land in isolation when one of the most fundamental 'planning principles' is connectivity. Any reasonable city which is not entirely wedded to the automobile would reject what you had proposed, so really it was you guys who f**ed up by bringing something of this nature to the table (even lip service to this idea would have gotten further than arguing against it).

What's more, re: the 'cannibalized' parking, those spaces only have to be constructed as a minimum. If you build them as part of your development, you've done your due diligence and therefore can't be rejected on the grounds that others might use them.
Click to expand...

You don't understand what I'm saying, as per usual you are simply trying to pick a fight. It's not about due diligence. For a retailer, parking is essential. When you build or lease space for your store, you require a certain amount of parking to make your operation work. When an adjacent retailer uses your parking spots, it severely impacts your ability to operate - hence the risk your development may well lose a good tenant and potentially become impossible to lease.
 
You're correct, I was speaking to the approvals process which doesn't seem to be the nature of your post. I stand by what I said however, since unless you worked for a developer and property manager a la "Smart" Centres etc., then it's not really up to you (the developer) who gets what parking. Any larger retail space of the nature you describe doesn't have signs on each space stating which store it belongs to and as such, all that matters is that Store X has x number of parking spaces in lot x. The practical outworking of that equation isn't up to you.

You've stated that you worked in a company which does this sort of work so if I'm wrong, perhaps you could enlighten me?
 
According to DCN...looks like its going to the OMB.

CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BUILDING, RETAIL
Proj: 9146346-1
Toronto, Metro Toronto Reg ON

PREPARING PLANS
357 King St W, M5V 1J6
$32,400,000 est

Note: Owner is currently seeking rezoning approval. An appeal has been made to the Ontario Municipal Board. Schedules for design, tender and construction will be determined pending approvals. Further update spring 2012.

Project: proposed construction of 40-storey condominium apartment building containing 242 residential units and retail on the ground floor.

Scope: 259,291 square feet; 40 storeys; 6 storeys below grade; 242 units; parking for 138 cars

Development: New
Category: Apartment bldgs; Retail, wholesale services
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/...b5a5a5e7d8f6&projectid=9146346&region=ontario
 
The sales centre is being covered in a facade of arched window stencils that are giving me PoMo nightmares.

Still, I'm sure this corner is in good hands if GG and Quadrangle are still involved.
 
The former sales centre is being used for Target Canada's one day Jason Wu collection sale today. I do not know if facade covering is specific to the Jason Wu event, or is for something longer term.
 
That's a relief. I think the facade is related to this temporary Target pop-up because the windows match the aesthetic of the Jason Wu print ads.
 
Here's what it looks like:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...es-for-jason-wu-chaos-on-king/article2347055/

web-target22nw1_1377354cl-8.jpg
 
Density of 30.8 times lot size is a major issue i have.
iirc, the max the city has authorized for any project has been 15x



interchange42 said:
Or it was because:

The proposal represents an inappropriate development for reasons including:

- The proposal does not have adequate regard to certain matters of Provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act for reasons discussed in this report;

- The proposal is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform with the Growth Plan for reasons discussed in this report;

- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the Official Plan policies, including policies related to built form, or tall buildings, with respect to an appropriate relationship with its context;

- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, including the objectives of ensuring new development is compatible with the built form context of the adjacent buildings, and ensuring that massing provides appropriate proportional relationships;

- The proposal could set a negative precedent that could encourage demolition or significant changes to properties within King-Spadina to achieve significant height increases and/or high densities that bear no resemblance to the in-force planning regime;

- The tower portion of the proposal does not provide appropriate separation from adjacent sites, as required by the City's Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals. The approval of this proposal could compromise the application of the Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals to other sites;

- The proposal provides insufficient or no setback from the side lot lines, which can compromise quality of life for future residents, and the development rights of adjacent landowners; and

- The lack of appropriate yard setbacks or stepbacks compromises Council-approved OPA 2 by exporting facing distance constraints onto adjacent sites;

There is no question that appropriate intensification and development are planning goals in King-Spadina. City Planning staff are prepared to consider development on the site but only in a manner that is respectful of the existing planning policy framework. The proposed massing overwhelm the streetscape and are detrimental to the character of this portion of King Street West. The proposal is inappropriate and unsupportable and does not represent good planning.

- - -

That's the conclusion to the report, and it seems more substantive than your assessment, but you are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.

42
Click to expand...
 
cdr108 said:
Density of 30.8 times lot size is a major issue i have.
iirc, the max the city has authorized for any project has been 15x
Click to expand...


that has to be some kind of joke, right cdr? i can name a half dozen that exceed 15x off the op of my head (without even thinking about it).
 
ThomasJ said:
that has to be some kind of joke, right cdr? i can name a half dozen that exceed 15x off the op of my head (without even thinking about it).
Click to expand...



plz name some and their density ratios ... as i said, iirc, the max has been 15x density
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top