[UtakataNoAnnex]

This project to my understanding will leave most of the church...or least the original building, intact to my understanding. Unless something has changed since.

 

[Kenojuak]

That is simply not true at all.

Please stop mis-stating the facts.

What you seem to be trying to say is that many homes in The Annex are in the Yellowbelt. First off, they ARE housing, so lets be clear on that. Second they be legally bought, sold, or rented.

Further, they can be rezoned, though, in the case of the yellow belt properties, if what one is seeking much higher density, then yes an OPA is required. But these have been granted already in the City, see the Huntley Selby site which has gone (in part) from yellowbelt to high density residential. Such conversion isn't 'illegal'; there is a process to follow.

On top of that, within the yellowbelt, permission for multiplexes of up to 4 units is now as-of-right, no OPA required. Heights of 3 storeys are now allowed everywhere, and 4 storeys in many yellowbelt areas are now permitted as-of-right as well.

You are technically right and substantively wrong

 

[Northern Light]

You are technically right and substantively wrong

Fixed that for ya.

I'm simply right, that's all.

I'm pro density, and pro-development, but facts matter. Those making hyperbolic posts that aren't true technically or substantively need to stop.

There is no intelligent discussion to be had when 'the facts' stated are simply wrong.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I'm not sure how technically right and substantively wrong is supposed to work unless you're Schrödinger's cat...

 

[ProjectEnd]

I get what you're saying; and i don't think we can compel an owner who literally can't afford the upkeep to maintain the building, however, we can force them to sell to someone who can afford to maintain it, if they cannot. If there were no buyers, even at $1, then I think the question shifts to whether the public should be the buyer if there's a desire to retain the building.

Would the church be a nice spot for a relocated and much enlarged Spadina Library branch?

You can't compel a sale unless there's a willing buyer. The issue here is that there doesn't seem to be, hence, TAS. Also, that's precisely (down to the $1 'sale') what happened with 155 Wychwood / Wychwood Davenport Presbyterian Church which did sell, but was torn down and is now a sad, vacant, lot: https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2020/0...-wychwood-davenport-presbyterian-church.42503

Also in that saga is the inevitable fire from disuse / abandonment, and the final destruction of a humble, if subtly beautiful building (incredible glulam arches supporting the roof). Will "Sinocoin Capital" (effing huge eyeroll) actually build their thing? Yeah, that's going to be a no from me, dawg.

 

[evandyk]

What you seem to be trying to say is that many homes in The Annex are in the Yellowbelt. First off, they ARE housing, so lets be clear on that. Second they be legally bought, sold, or rented.

Obviously single family homes are a kind of housing, but it's a kind that we should actively be trying to phase out and replace in transit-rich areas like the Annex.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Obviously single family homes are a kind of housing, but it's a kind that we should actively be trying to phase out and replace in transit-rich areas like the Annex.

As someone who lived in three different houses converted to multiplexes in the Annex (long before they were recently made legal as-of-right), what appears to be a bunch of single-family homes in the Annex is already denser than meets the eye.

The Annex is a neighbourhood with a diversity of forms and tenures of housing already. It has a beautiful heritage stock of mostly 3-storey structures, and I would not want them redeveloped wholesale. It also already has a few nice clusters of apartment towers.

But there are opportunities for continued evolution and growth without wholesale redevelopment of the 3-storey homes and multiplexes. Some of the surrounding proposals indicate that. I would highlight the one just to the south of this site at the southeast corner of Dalton and Lowther as a more contextual addition. There also remains a lot of room for development along Dupont, Bathurst, Bloor, and Spadina. Spadina especially could do better with reasonable rezoning & the addition of mixed-use.

 

[evandyk]

Bloor should not be touched. Bloor is what is good about the Annex. Spadina has some nice buildings lining the west side between Bloor and Bernard, and that should line both sides all the way to Dupont.

 

[torontologist]

That is simply not true at all.

Please stop mis-stating the facts.

What you seem to be trying to say is that many homes in The Annex are in the Yellowbelt. First off, they ARE housing, so lets be clear on that. Second they be legally bought, sold, or rented.

Further, they can be rezoned, though, in the case of the yellow belt properties, if what one is seeking much higher density, then yes an OPA is required. But these have been granted already in the City, see the Huntley Selby site which has gone (in part) from yellowbelt to high density residential. Such conversion isn't 'illegal'; there is a process to follow.

On top of that, within the yellowbelt, permission for multiplexes of up to 4 units is now as-of-right, no OPA required. Heights of 3 storeys are now allowed everywhere, and 4 storeys in many yellowbelt areas are now permitted as-of-right as well.

Let’s not pretend that an OPA isn’t a long, odious process that often results in massive cost increases to appease City Planning’s fairly arbitrary requirements.

We all know that it’s hard to make those 4-storey buildings pencil in today’s market, particularly in this location where land costs a premium. The current zoning continues to sterilize much of the Annex and prevents housing from being built.

This proposal is the only realistic path forward to maintain this massive structure that no longer serves much of a purpose. The City is too strapped for cash to take it on.

Most importantly- it provides more housing in a location with unmet demand!

 

[Northern Light]

Let’s not pretend that an OPA isn’t a long, odious process that often results in massive cost increases to please City Planning’s fairly arbitrary requirements.

We all know that it’s hard to make those 4-storey buildings pencil in today’s market, particularly in this location where land costs a premium. The current zoning continues to sterilize much of the Annex and prevents housing from being built.

This proposal is the only realistic path forward to maintain this massive structure that no longer serves much of a purpose. The City is too strapped for cash to take it on.

Most importantly- more housing in a location with unmet demand!

I haven't argued against the proposal at this site; other than to suggest it would benefit from some tweaks.

I'm fine w/including housing on this site.

That's not the argument being made, its about the broader context.

Including a rather absurd argument that some of the mediocre architecture on Bloor needs to stay, so we can sterilize an area with beautiful homes and chop down all the established trees.

I simply believe in nauance, and policy based on facts.

Where people knowingly or out of ignorance misstate the facts, the opportunity for intelligent discussion is lost; where positions are extreme, all the they do is illicit backlash that will set the cause back several decades.

I'm all for more density in appropriate locations, including many sites in the Annex, but before we go ensuring the next Mayor is a member of the Annex Residents Association and that the next premier rolls zoning back to the stone age, how about we discuss where to put things thoughtfully instead of with all the finesse of a sledge hammer?

 

[egotrippin]

Obviously single family homes are a kind of housing, but it's a kind that we should actively be trying to phase out and replace in transit-rich areas like the Annex.

Aren't you literally building a SFH right now? Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I recall from other posts you're building a garden suite on a lot that looks similar to homes in the Annex.

 

[evandyk]

Aren't you literally building a SFH right now? Pardon me if I'm wrong, but I recall from other posts you're building a garden suite on a lot that looks similar to homes in the Annex.

I am! On my friend's backyard. Technically a laneway house. A bit west of the Annex.

SF detached is not my preferred way to live, but you can never get everything you want in Toronto. I really wanted to be west and close to the subway, and there's not many apartment options big enough for a family.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I haven't argued against the proposal at the this site; other than to suggest it would benefit from some tweaks.

I'm fine w/including housing on this site.

That's not the argument being made, its about the broader context.

Including a rather absurd argument that some of the mediocre architecture on Bloor needs to stay, so we can sterilize an area with beautiful homes and chop down all the established trees.

I simply believe in nauance, and policy based on facts.

Where people knowingly or out of ignorance misstate the facts, the opportunity for intelligent discussion is lost; where positions are extreme, all the they do is illicit backlash that will set the cause back several decades.

I'm all for more density in appropriate locations, including many sites in the Annex, but before we go ensuring the next Mayor is a member of the Annex Residents Association and that the next premier rolls zoning back to the stone age, how about we discuss where to put things thoughtfully instead of with all the finesse of a sledge hammer?

I prefer The Jerry Springer Show approach for the /popcorn...

...er, just kidding!

 

[egotrippin]

I am! On my friend's backyard. Technically a laneway house. A bit west of the Annex.

SF detached is not my preferred way to live, but you can never get everything you want in Toronto. I really wanted to be west and close to the subway, and there's not many apartment options big enough for a family.

There has definitely been a shortage of appropriately family-sized units constructed during this building boom, it's an issue. Too many small unlivable units geared towards investors. Didn't mean to single you out anything, I just believe in finding ways to increase density throughout the city while preserving to an extent established neighbourhood typologies like you get in the Annex.

Equally or more so than the homes themselves, I also worry about losing the mature tree canopy these sorts of low-rise neighbourhoods support, which would definitely come at the expense of razing the SFH for larger multi-unit apartments. Doesn't help that most modern condo architecture is so profoundly bland and soulless either, so I guess I get a little jumpy when I see broad statements about tearing down entire streets.

 

[3Dementia]

I'm a fan of Suulin's thoughtful, often elegant work and I'm bemused and confused by the hate some have for this design (eg. "hideous carbuncle")... I think Suulin/TAS can deliver a handsome 20 storey building. I like the colourful masonry(?) balconies etc. and don't think another KPMB-style Cielo glass/aluminum tower is what's needed here. Bettin' on nice landscaping too, private/POPs and streets.

The heritage plan for the church seems pretty much identical to Cieo's (new sanctuary hall/community space). Lots to like imo. Back to the regularly scheduled debate.