Given the location, I find it odd that this proposal would be opposed. Sure, there is to be some additional density, but this is to be expected with any development. A building like this so close to Dundas makes sense in my opinion.

A win at the OMB for the developer will set a precedent that the councillor and the local residents will be stuck with. They will likely realize this only when the next project comes along - and that one may not be as nice looking as this proposal.
 
Pfloyd said:
Based on the news, I would say the main reason is: Gord Perks. It is unbelievable that our ward and its residents, ultimately, are held hostage by this character (same one who came up with the moratorium on West Queen West new restaurants and bars). Perks is an unabashed left wing socialist/communist that opposes any gentrification forces. It seems like his ideology and his dislike of the market economy always get in the way of common sense in his little militant brain.
By the way, I think this is nicely designed building, and the project would benefit the community.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Just find it strange that a politician with no architectural or planning background, can direct City Planning to reject a good mid-rise proposal like this. Why doesn't City planning have its own autonomous voice on these matters? I was at the community meeting. It was very tame with only about 30 people (mostly your typical NIMBY crowd) I would say Perks by no means has the support of the community on this one.
 
OMB sides with what matches provincial planning, which is often developers as munipalities don't like provincial planning policy (because of NIMBYs)

developers usually follow provincial planning policies, because they know the OMB would approve it and municipal planning policy is extremely restrictive. NIMBYs get too involved and because councillers are locally elected, they have to follow the NIMBYs in approving overly restrictive planning policies. Now of course the Province wants more lax planning policies to match their intensification and places to grow plans (Greenbelt), which doesn't match NIMBY wants which by their nature are largely opposed to intensification other than at a level that is ineffective both intensification wise and financially on terms of developers. (The developers can't pull enough of a profit off of current city planning as the scale of buildings does not allow for high enough profits with the red tape and building codes that they have to go through to get the building built, this is why I am a big supporter of allowing 6 floor wood frame buildings, it would make midrises much more financially viable)
 
Last edited:
From local City Councillor Gord Perks' newsletter:

383 Sorauren Avenue update – January 8th, 2014

Friends,

As you probably remember the development proposal for 383 Sorauren was scheduled to go to the Ontario Municipal Board earlier this week.

At the last minute the developer approached the City with concessions. In particular, they agreed to reduce the height of the front of the building, by incorporating a “Stepback” of 3 metres between the 6th and 7th floors, and an additional stepback of 3 metres between the 7th and 8th floors. (there are 2 additional floors that will be stepbacked even further and will not be visible from street level.) I should note that the open brick frame will remain as an architectural feature. The developer also agreed to increase parking, most importantly visitor parking. Given that these proposals meet the top two goals of community members who worked on the proposal, and meets the City’s technical requirements for how a building of this size looks and feels at street level, staff settled the matter without a hearing.

The settlement results in the approval of a 10 storey residential building, consisting of 145 units, 224 square metres of indoor amenity space, and 301 square metres of outdoor amenity space. A total of 113 vehicle parking spaces (including 19 visitor parking spaces), and 154 bicycle parking spaces will be provided as part of the development.

Section 37 benefits have been negotiated in the form of cash contributions towards the Sorauren-Wabash Community Centre, and an ongoing fund for affordable rental housing in Ward 14.

An informational Settlement Report, outlining the details of the settlement, will be considered by Toronto and East York Community Council in the near future. The Report will be sent out for your information once available.

Community members were very engaged in the process to find an acceptable proposal at this site. Thank you for your ongoing commitment to our community. I particularly want to thank the community members who came to the OMB for the day and bore witness to the final negotiations.

Gord
Click to expand...
 
GORD said:
The settlement results in the approval of a 10 storey residential building, consisting of 145 units, 224 square metres of indoor amenity space, and 301 square metres of outdoor amenity space. A total of 113 vehicle parking spaces (including 19 visitor parking spaces), and 154 bicycle parking spaces will be provided as part of the development.
Click to expand...

19 visitor spots is enough IF it's strictly enforced. One thing I learned from living at 363 Sorauren (next door) and then in a condo building is that people are naturally selfish. Originally we started off with unenforced visitor parking. About 30 spots. The lot was crammed full with residents who didn't buy parking spots with their unit and 'visitors' who would leave their car there for a week at a time. It was absolutely brutal. Then we instituted a pay system - and enforced it with City of Toronto parking tickets. People screamed bloody murder. They said it was so unfair to make their visitors pay for parking in downtown Toronto. Guess what happened? The lot completely cleared out. All of a sudden it ran the way it was supposed to run and there was ALWAYS room for true visitors to park. The small fee (I think it was $4 to park overnight) was all it took. People are bad if you don't keep an eye on them. Sad but true. :D
 
I should add, there was one guy who calculated that a paking ticket per day was still less than buying a parking spot with his unit for the 2 years he planned to live there. Total jerk. We even towed him but he just kept coming back.
 
interchange42 said:
From local City Councillor Gord Perks' newsletter:
Click to expand...

Must be nice to be a Councillor and recreate history. I heard that the CITY approached the developer last minute only once they realized that they didn't stand a chance at the OMB and that their witnesses were very weak. This was a last minute attempt to try and save face and get some section 37 funds. Albeit a much smaller amount then the Community would've got if Perks didn't completely mismanage the entire thing.
 
At least someone was able to talk sense at the City then, if not Perks himself. Here's hoping Gairloch spends the cash to have renderings updated. I won't hold my breath for a new scale model, but I have faith that aA will handle the stepbacks with élan, and that we will see something beautiful here! Looking forward to some new pics!!

42
 
So if I am to understand Cllr. Perks email then that means the building then is no longer going to be a box?
That from floors 6 to 10 it will continually step back?

So kind of like the Howard Park condos I assume?

Either way, this is good news.
 
I received an email for an event that's happening that the sales centre and noticed that the rendering looked different.
So I think this might be the new rendering with the 'concessions' included, unless my eyes are playing tricks on me.


You can clearly see the last two storeys are set back with the brick frame still as a prominent feature.
Sorry about the size of the picture!

unnamed.jpg
 

Attachments

  • unnamed.jpg
    unnamed.jpg
    28.7 KB · Views: 833
Courtesy of BuzzBuzzHome: 383 Sorauren to break ground in August

“We’ll be starting partial demolition of the back warehouse part of the building in the next couple months,†says Gairdner. “We’ll hold off demolishing the presentation centre until we start digging below grade in August just because it’s such a great space. After demolition, we’ll have a smaller pop-up sales centre closer to Roncesvalles Avenue if that’s required.â€

Gairdner adds the “if required†caveat because sales have been very strong recently and the project may very well be sold out by the time the presentation centre needs to be demolished to make way for the new condo building.

“We’re north of 60 per cent sold and there’s definitely been a bump in activity both traffic-wise and sales-wise since people started to hear about the approvals from the city,†says Gairdner.
Click to expand...

I'm very excited. :cool:
 
I'm a little surprised that its only just north of 60% sold, but keeping in mind the area (Dundas, in particular, not Sorauren) and the train tracks that's actually quite good.

The brick used here looks awesome. We need more of these mid-rises across the city. This is the type of new building that I would have liked to have been built in West Queen West.
 
RiverCity1 said:
I'm a little surprised that its only just north of 60% sold, but keeping in mind the area (Dundas, in particular, not Sorauren) and the train tracks that's actually quite good.

The brick used here looks awesome. We need more of these mid-rises across the city. This is the type of new building that I would have liked to have been built in West Queen West.
Click to expand...

As the article said, sales probably stalled when it was announced it was going to the OMB.
This is the type of development that City Planner Jennifer Keesmaat boasts about. I agree, we do need more of these type of developments (and I'm not just saying that because I bought here) -- even a development like Duke condos.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top