E

evanb

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
123
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca
www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

New application with CoA, to sever the lot and construct a four story multiplex.

1731260457604.png

1731260520777.png
 
Thoughts on the above:

1) I'm baffled they chose to propose 5 units here if 4 units is as-of-right. Seems like a needless hassle over 1 unit. Perhaps there's some other control-factor here like an SASP that makes this worthwhile......

2)I have no objection in principle, but I don't think its particularly thoughtful architecturally in terms of trying to fit in, even while being taller/more intensive.

3) At 12M they would be challenged to get the building much shorter, in terms of fitting in, but I note that they have also increased at-grade/ground level height modestly, which does make it a bit more imposing. The set-back at-grade is ...weird.

I don't think a 4-storey needs setbacks as its going up, as a general rule, but a setback on the lowest level (overhang for the uppers) reads poorly to me.

****

For all of the above, which I hope reads as a modest, thoughtful critique..........

There is a single letter of objection currently on file from a neighbour.............said letter is not particularly nuanced, LOL

The Letter makes extensive reference to the person's family, uses their names and provides their home address. I don't wish to dox them, even if I find the letter too much and it is on the public record.

As such I am copy/pasting but redacting personal info:

"The proposed project at 710 Lansdowne Ave would completely destroy that future for
not only my son...... but also anyone else that plans on raising their family here.

The proposed project is a faceless corporation trying to build a multiplex rental property that
would destroy the entire essence of the neighbourhood. Approving this project would be the
city completely turning its back on the people of the neighbourhood. The people like my
family who are the heart and soul of the neighbourhood. There is not a single person in the
neighbourhood that is in favour of this project, because we understand exactly what the
approval of this project means. These corporations do not care about the integrity of the
neighbourhood. They will invite anyone and everyone to fill rental units, at a high turnover
rate to maximise profits. Approval of this project would start a domino effect inviting other
faceless corporations to come in and purchase single family homes with the sole purpose of
converting them all into more multiplex rental properties. And before we all know it, our once
beautiful, safe, welcoming, warm, family filled neighbourhood will have been destroyed by
corporate greed."

*****

Ok then.........
 
AlbertC said:
The fear mongering and holier than thou tone of such letters of objection is rich!
Click to expand...

I just find it genuinely bizarre and over-the-top.

As I noted, I think its perfectly fine for someone to oppose something, even if I agree with it.

I don't mind people being selfish, to a point, either, if the issue were a personal one such as 'this will overlook my back yard and may feel like an invasion of my privacy' or such.

I might think that's not a good enough reason to oppose this; but I could understand why that person was choosing to do so.

Here, this letter is just so far out there........ I simply can't connect with it on any level.

Its not the height, or the shadow or the privacy.........but because it will be owned by a nameless, faceless corporation? Its because its rental, and renters are transient? ( as a renter in the same building for decades, I may beg to differ on this point)

Its just bizarre.
 
Northern Light said:
Thoughts on the above:

1) I'm baffled they chose to propose 5 units here if 4 units is as-of-right. Seems like a needless hassle over 1 unit. Perhaps there's some other control-factor here like an SASP that makes this worthwhile......

2)I have no objection in principle, but I don't think its particularly thoughtful architecturally in terms of trying to fit in, even while being taller/more intensive.

3) At 12M they would be challenged to get the building much shorter, in terms of fitting in, but I note that they have also increased at-grade/ground level height modestly, which does make it a bit more imposing. The set-back at-grade is ...weird.

I don't think a 4-storey needs setbacks as its going up, as a general rule, but a setback on the lowest level (overhang for the uppers) reads poorly to me.

****

For all of the above, which I hope reads as a modest, thoughtful critique..........

There is a single letter of objection currently on file from a neighbour.............said letter is not particularly nuanced, LOL

The Letter makes extensive reference to the person's family, uses their names and provides their home address. I don't wish to dox them, even if I find the letter too much and it is on the public record.

As such I am copy/pasting but redacting personal info:

"The proposed project at 710 Lansdowne Ave would completely destroy that future for
not only my son...... but also anyone else that plans on raising their family here.

The proposed project is a faceless corporation trying to build a multiplex rental property that
would destroy the entire essence of the neighbourhood. Approving this project would be the
city completely turning its back on the people of the neighbourhood. The people like my
family who are the heart and soul of the neighbourhood. There is not a single person in the
neighbourhood that is in favour of this project, because we understand exactly what the
approval of this project means. These corporations do not care about the integrity of the
neighbourhood. They will invite anyone and everyone to fill rental units, at a high turnover
rate to maximise profits. Approval of this project would start a domino effect inviting other
faceless corporations to come in and purchase single family homes with the sole purpose of
converting them all into more multiplex rental properties. And before we all know it, our once
beautiful, safe, welcoming, warm, family filled neighbourhood will have been destroyed by
corporate greed."

*****

Ok then.........
Click to expand...
CMHC financing kicks in at 5 units.
 
ProjectEnd said:
CMHC financing kicks in at 5 units.
Click to expand...

First, thanks for that insight.

Second....

Well that makes perfect sense when the City picked 4 units for as-of-right for multiplex housing, doesn't it?

Someone should move, I'm entirely negotiable on whether CMHC comes down to 4 or the City goes up to 5, but they really ought to be aligned.
 
Northern Light said:
First, thanks for that insight.

Second....

Well that makes perfect sense when the City picked 4 units for as-of-right for multiplex housing, doesn't it?

Someone should move, I'm entirely negotiable on whether CMHC comes down to 4 or the City goes up to 5, but they really ought to be aligned.
Click to expand...
You are expecting waaaaaaaaaaaay too much out of the City if you think that kind of correlation is possible...
 
AlbertC said:
The fear mongering and holier than thou tone of such letters of objection is rich!
Click to expand...
Some aspects of the letter are likely true, and I am not going to dispute that. But they are saying that now for this proposal which always makes me suspicious of the sincerity of the narrative here...

...but there's one thing I can't agree within it's claims. That is, what do they mean by destroying the neighbourhood? How would this project not enhance the character of the same instead? Might as well be saying they don't like the look of this proposal, so it shouldn't be built. And I don't think that singular personal opinion should ever fly or deserve merit.
 
Northern Light said:
I just find it genuinely bizarre and over-the-top.

As I noted, I think its perfectly fine for someone to oppose something, even if I agree with it.

I don't mind people being selfish, to a point, either, if the issue were a personal one such as 'this will overlook my back yard and may feel like an invasion of my privacy' or such.

I might think that's not a good enough reason to oppose this; but I could understand why that person was choosing to do so.

Here, this letter is just so far out there........ I simply can't connect with it on any level.

Its not the height, or the shadow or the privacy.........but because it will be owned by a nameless, faceless corporation? Its because its rental, and renters are transient? ( as a renter in the same building for decades, I may beg to differ on this point)

Its just bizarre.
Click to expand...

I take issue with how the letter tries to mask themselves with the moral compass affirmation of the corporate greed stance, but at the same time evoke a perceived threat of the villainized renters. The part about: "They will invite anyone and everyone to fill rental units" is particularly troubling because IMO that starts to show the person's true colours on how they perceive renters. It also insinuates a negative outcome even though usually new multiplex buildings are typically either market rate or even higher rents.

Additionally, despite being right on Lansdowne, which is served by a bus route, and within walking distance to the subway station, and also surrounded by other existing albeit small scaled multi-unit residential buildings, it clings onto the notion that SFH or yellowbelt housing cannot be defeated or else it is somehow detrimental to the community. I find the underlying tone of the letter to be that SFH owners can live here, but they (the renters) cannot.
 
I live near here and will say ‘Fear Not!’ The NIMBYism is getting thin as more and more conversions happen and serious money can be made. SFH owners will swear up and down that they are horrified by change while at the same time counting down the days until they will sell or planning intensification themselves! lol
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top