Full Metal Junkie said:
If I had to guess, i would say that the City Planning cutting down the height of every building proposal they come across is a combination of:
1) Treating NYMBYism as a valid vocal minority input
2) Mindless resistance to change
3) Arguing for the sake of arguing
4) Trying to show off one's importance (i.e. power trip)
5) General incompetence
Click to expand...

Spoken like someone who’s never interacted with the people he impugns.
 
interchange42 said:
City Councillors will tell you that they won't talk Section 37 until Planning is satisfied with the proposal. Now, that doesn't stop developers from suggesting what they'd like to offer in terms of Section 37 benefits, and here that means a community amphitheatre, but If you can show me instances where Section 37 negotiation is underway on the Councillor's behalf prior to Planning accepting the proposal, then go ahead and mutter about it.
Click to expand...
That is besides the point.

You suggested why doesn't City Council upzone areas so that they are appropriate to development activity and market demands, rather than forcing every development to challenge the existing zoning and prolonging the development process.

The answer is, if a development project could be built as-of-right and not challenge the density/height provisions of the prevailing zoning, then there is no opportunity for City Council to collect Section 37 money.

You can definitely make the argument that in terms of pure monetary benefit, City Planning is acting in the best interest of the City of Toronto Corporation by advocating against the upzoning of high-activity areas to Council.
 
The city does need to be rezoned at reasonable heights and density levels so that developers could know what they could build without a fight every time. The rezoning would have to come with a new formula for setting Section 37 amounts, preferably per bedroom for residential use and by area for commercial use. In this scenario the Section 37 funding requirements would simply be applied, not negotiated (although the form that they might take might still be negotiated, such as in this case as a community amphitheatre… or not).

42
 
interchange42 said:
The city does need to be rezoned at reasonable heights and density levels so that developers could know what they could build without a fight every time. The rezoning would have to come with a new formula for setting Section 37 amounts, preferably per bedroom for residential use and by area for commercial use. In this scenario the Section 37 funding requirements would simply be applied, not negotiated (although the form that they might take might still be negotiated, such as in this case as a community amphitheatre… or not).

42
Click to expand...
I am all for it. It is becoming especially egregious given the disparity between prescribed heights/densities and the prevailing provincial policy (Places to Grow). And ultimately, we have a housing crisis here and the amount of time it takes to work through the planning process is only adding costs to those who are actively expanding housing supply.

Maybe Druggie will have the province look into changing the Planning Act.
 
interchange42 said:
Sorry, but, huh? What ducks? There are very few places in the City where the zoning is not considered obsolete, so there's a Zoning Bylaw Application made with 98% of development submissions. The question is not whether a development proposal will be larger than what zoning allows, but by how much.

City Councillors will tell you that they won't talk Section 37 until Planning is satisfied with the proposal. Now, that doesn't stop developers from suggesting what they'd like to offer in terms of Section 37 benefits, and here that means a community amphitheatre, but If you can show me instances where Section 37 negotiation is underway on the Councillor's behalf prior to Planning accepting the proposal, then go ahead and mutter about it.

Toronto Planners are humans, but they're professionals, not kids writing anonymous knee-jerk accusations on online forums.

42
Click to expand...
I just meant that the developer was disorganized and could have handled this better.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
I just meant that the developer was disorganized and could have handled this better.
Click to expand...
This developer went out to the community early with more public consultations than most, and brought in a top-notch architect. If that's disorganization, more please.

42
 
TwoDogs_39 said:
The proposal for this site is ridiculously aggressive given the Village context and the in-force policy for the area, which was only recently approved by the city and the OMB. This is not a site for a 37 storey tower.
Click to expand...

Aggressive? Everything that’s been developed on this street in the past 10 years is 40 storeys or greater and this is a busy corner as well. And let’s not forget that there’s a subway a couple hundreds meters from here.

The open piazza concept is great and the design is beautiful. This could be a real landmark building if done properly.
 
Ten months since I last posted a render on this thread...

Toronto Model 01-05-19 552Church.png
 
LMVDR said:
Aggressive? Everything that’s been developed on this street in the past 10 years is 40 storeys or greater and this is a busy corner as well. And let’s not forget that there’s a subway a couple hundreds meters from here.

The open piazza concept is great and the design is beautiful. This could be a real landmark building if done properly.
Click to expand...

The member’s point is that the proposal was aggressive because the developer knew this was a designated low-rise neighbourhood.

You might not agree with that designation, but I think plenty of people don’t want an interesting area turned into the next lifeless Charles Street. Even worse, the footprint of the building has expanded to destroy more fine-grain buildings than before. I hope the City doesn’t compromise and this gets shut down hard.
 
This isn't the case of existing zoning heights being at odds with policy. The City has relatively recent policies (approved 2013, settled at OMB 2016/2017) specifically requiring low-scale infill to maintain the Church Street Village character.

"[The area policy] identifies that in the Church Street Village Character Area, development should reinforce the core village area as a low to mid-rise pedestrian oriented main street with street related retail uses and narrow retail frontages subject to angular plane provisions for portions of this Character Area. Further, that this Character Area is regarded as a stable area that should experience limited growth, both along Church Street and in the residential areas abutting and surrounding it. As a policy in SASP 382 states, the only development permitted in Mixed Use Areas is sensitive low-scale infill that respects and reinforces the general "

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-108858.pdf
 
mcornett said:
The member’s point is that the proposal was aggressive because the developer knew this was a designated low-rise neighbourhood.

You might not agree with that designation, but I think plenty of people don’t want an interesting area turned into the next lifeless Charles Street. Even worse, the footprint of the building has expanded to destroy more fine-grain buildings than before. I hope the City doesn’t compromise and this gets shut down hard.
Click to expand...

Yes, thank you for stating this. That's exactly my point. There is a new policy framework for the Church Street Village. To conflate Church Street with the high-rise character of Charles or Wellesley West of Church ignores the existing and planned context of the site, and is blind to the new policy for Church Street. No one can say the sea is condos along Charles Street is anything like the Village feel and character.
 
interchange42 said:
This developer went out to the community early with more public consultations than most, and brought in a top-notch architect. If that's disorganization, more please.

42
Click to expand...
Well, yes and no. They did go out to the neighbourhood/city eventually, but there were a number of discussions with the city before that point and a number of schemes were explored well before 3XN was brought on board.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top