The existing hotel is pretty good, especially since it's the only one in the area. It's definitely a bit dated, but the staff are nice. I'd really hate to see this hotel torn down.


I'm sure we'll see a hotel built in the area in the next ten years, or atleast a hotel/condo.
 
Request for Interim Direction Report: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-117083.pdf
This Report responds to an application where staff are currently not in a position to provide a Final Report to Council, but which could be appealed to the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) due to a lack of decision during the break in Council's meeting schedule (July to December 2018).

[...]

In its current form, the proposed development is not consistent with the PPS, does not conform with the Growth Plan and does not conform with the policies of the Official Plan.

Issues to be resolved, as outlined in this report, include: height, setbacks, parkland dedication, infrastructure capacity, pedestrian connections, and Section 37 community benefits.
Click to expand...
 
In its current form, the proposed development is not consistent with the PPS, does not conform with the Growth Plan and does not conform with the policies of the Official Plan.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear their argument.
 
Also worth noting that Best Western appears to have removed all branding, and the hotel now has new signage/mgmt. Can't remember the new post-BW name.
 
someMidTowner said:
Also worth noting that Best Western appears to have removed all branding, and the hotel now has new signage/mgmt. Can't remember the new post-BW name.
Click to expand...
IMG_20180717_174436.jpg
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20180717_174436.jpg
    IMG_20180717_174436.jpg
    262.3 KB · Views: 1,486
Does this development now include 247 & 249 Roehampton Ave and 820 Mt Pleasant Rd (the houses on the corner of Roehampton and Mt Pleasant)? Or is that going to become a different project?
 
www.cp24.com

Politicians, residents concerned after lease for midtown temporary shelter is extended

Politicians and residents in midtown Toronto are voicing concern after the lease for a temporary shelter to house vulnerable people amid the COVID-19 pandemic was extended for two years, a decision that they say they were not notified of.
www.cp24.com www.cp24.com

Politicians and residents in midtown Toronto are voicing concern after the lease for a temporary shelter to house vulnerable people amid the COVID-19 pandemic was extended for two years, a decision that they say they were not notified of.

The Roehampton Hotel, a previously vacant building located near Mount Pleasant Road and Eglinton Avenue, as well as two other buildings slated to be torn down in the area on Broadway Avenue, were designated as temporary shelters to help Toronto’s homeless population as the novel coronavirus swept across the city.

The two buildings on Broadway Avenue are expected to close on Sept. 7 as a condo project for the site moves forward, which means that the 149 residents who were moved there will have to find a new place to live.

Meanwhile, the city has extended the lease for the Roahampton Hotel for two years, prompting concern from residents who say they’re worried about what it will mean for the area.
Click to expand...
 
WillTo said:
I have never wanted to see a condo go up faster than this site!
Click to expand...
And why's that? :)

I wouldn't mind the construction cycle of this project to align well with the opening of the Crosstown, so as to finally be cleaned of construction in the area. Though with the shelter being extended for another two years, that is less likely now.
 
Given the relevant provincial planning framework, there really is no argument why 44 floors isn't appropriate here, there is a planned rapid transit station next door. The developer's application came in before the City updated their secondary plan for the area (which Doug's government has since replaced with their own revised version anyway) so the City has a very poor argument here.

The City will hate it and oppose this as much as it can, but it will be a futile effort. Maybe an "agreement" will be reached somewhere along the way to reduce this by 2-4 storeys (housing crisis? what housing crisis?) so that there is some sort of resolution for the local councilor to claim victory over.

But I agree, as a long time resident of the area, 44 storeys is quite a change.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top