vW9CuTw.png

MFSzDid.png
 
Seems Church street is getting a lot of attention, considering how close it is to the subway and how many surface lots there are.

412, 355, 365, 66 Isabella, 72 Carlton, 60 Colborne, Core. Will be a lot denser in 10 years.
 
Isn't this like the development that Adam Vaughan fought against where The Silver Dollar is? He didn't want it to be like a boarding house. Student residences should not be privately run, they should be run by the school.
 
khristopher said:
. Student residences should not be privately run, they should be run by the school.
Click to expand...
Why? I think schools are better sticking to their main raison d'etre though I agree that it is probably not suitable to have them run by profit-making landlords (though most students living off-campus and not at home DO pay rent to commercial landlords of one sort or another); I think student residences should probably be run by non-profit corporations - possibly partly owned by the school - who might provide 'services' like 'floor fellows' and gain some expertise in running residential accommodation..
 
anybody know the developer for this property? it's told it's been sold

Hello,
anybody know the current developer for this property? it's said that it's been sold.
 
This proposal went to pre-hearing at the OMB in early March with another pre-hearing scheduled in June (I was notified via mail). The hearing date was set for November 16, 2015. I think it was appealed as a result of a non-decision by the City of Toronto.

I will reserve my judgement, but the general gist of my thoughts on this are laughable site design, absolutely no basis for parking standard and no demonstrated demand for what would be in effect a vertical slum.
 
Can you expand upon "no demonstrated demand"? Not sure what you mean exactly by that.

42
 
student housing is automatically a vertical slum now?

Students tend not to require a whole lot of parking as well, The student housing building on Gerrard has only guest parking and it has something like 800 residents living in it.
 
intervention said:
I will reserve my judgement, but the general gist of my thoughts on this are laughable site design, absolutely no basis for parking standard and no demonstrated demand for what would be in effect a vertical slum.
Click to expand...

What an absurd comment.

Demand from real university students is not demand? By the same token, Washington Square, NYC is not a real neighbourhood. The fact that is located downtown, being close to all the urban amenities means it will be in high demand. It is far superior than some reputable neighbourhoods such as Leaside or Leslieville or whatever. Students are an integral part of our city, and it is especially true for downtown. Who doesn't like to see young people walking up and down the streets, bringing so much life to the urban core? They bring a lot of diversity as well as demand for affordable restaurants as well.

How does the number of parking mean anything? Living at Church and Carlton, why does anyone have to have a car? To do what? Do you buy 50 inch TV and transport it every day? With a hefty price tag of $50k a spot and probably $500 for operating a car, it makes little sense for people living there for buying a parking spot, when practically everything they need is within 20 minutes walking distance. Grocery, a major reason for having cars, is literally steps away, actually several of them.

I am extremely optimistic about the Church - Jarvis corridor in the next 10-20 years. It will experience dramatically changes and improvements, become a lot vibrant than what it is now, and will prove to be one of the most a great place to live. Just the walkability alone is far better than 90% of other spots in the city.
 
Last edited:
Students have magnified the quality of this neighbourhood, not diminished it. They're the ones walking on street and adding urban vibrancy, drinking at the Ye Old Barn (Marquis de Granby), eating at Gu, drinking latte at Bulldog, and shopping the Joe Fresh. They only occasionally barf on the sidewalk, and much less so than the previous generation that inhabited South Village ;)
 
The City will be opposing this application at the OMB, essentially considering it an over-development of the site.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top