xy3 said:
Consultation with local residents is unnessasary and only serves to slow down the approval/building process, adding more costs for the buyer
Click to expand...

Disagree.

Also, in this context, it was one meeting out of many, which were needed to address an absolutely terrible plan put forward by CF initially.
 
OPA resubmitted August '24 @Paclo

From the Cover Letter:

1724432508951.png


1724432542584.png


Context Plan:

1724432617105.png



Additional detail on the changes made showing each change in relation to City Staff comments in the Refusal Report: (from the Planning Report)

1724432969063.png

1724432988387.png

1724433011378.png

1724433034808.png


Master Plan Concept:


1724433107421.png



No new Renders

@HousingNowTO will wish to make note of this bit:

1724433203619.png
 
Definitely better the initial plans for sure, but I dont understand why we need park space fronting the car sewer known as Sheppard Ave. It would be much better to shift all the park land to the north fronting Fairview Mall Drive, which would lead to having park space that's actually useful and faces a more quiet street.

I'll go as far as saying that the park space on Sheppard as proposed is virtually useless and will serve as nothing more than a pissing ground for dogs.
 
Amare said:
Definitely better the initial plans for sure, but I dont understand why we need park space fronting the car sewer known as Sheppard Ave. It would be much better to shift all the park land to the north fronting Fairview Mall Drive, which would lead to having park space that's actually useful and faces a more quiet street.

I'll go as far as saying that the park space on Sheppard as proposed is virtually useless and will serve as nothing more than a pissing ground for dogs.
Click to expand...

The parkland is improved, in as much as the consolidated it to two parcels from several.

The total area provided for, even if it were one parcel is less than what is required for a single sports field (if you also want a playground).

The entire site (inclusive of the existing mall) is ~20ha/50 acres. While I realize the current joke of a provincial requirement allows for 5% of site area, irrespective of the population served (which makes no sense, at all); 10% of the site area would be a reasonable suggestion. That would be 2ha, or 5 acres, or about double what is being proposed. Done as a single block it would have maximal utility.

I do get why they've split the park space in two, its because they want to leave the existing mall as-is, and its a barrier for any residents on the Sheppard side to reach a park north of the mall, outside of Mall Hours, there's also a certain distance involved as well, if the park is meant as convenient for a quick dog walk in winter etc.

That said, this whole thing is hamstrung by the absolutely dumb idea of retaining the mall.

I have no problem with a mall on-site, but it should be 3-4 storeys, not two, and take up about 1/2 the current area, it should then be consolidated to one side of the site, so that a proper street grid can be delivered.

****

The Toronto Parkland standard is 28m2 per person, the suggestion in this proposal is up to 12,000 residents could call this site home. That would require parkland of just over 33ha, which is to say, larger than the entire site.

In light of that, I think the City should spend some acquisition money here, and expand the northern park to at least 1.5ha, and the site overall to 2ha.
 
Northern Light said:
The parkland is improved, in as much as the consolidated it to two parcels from several.

The total area provided for, even if it were one parcel is less than what is required for a single sports field (if you also want a playground).

The entire site (inclusive of the existing mall) is ~20ha/50 acres. While I realize the current joke of a provincial requirement allows for 5% of site area, irrespective of the population served (which makes no sense, at all); 10% of the site area would be a reasonable suggestion. That would be 2ha, or 5 acres, or about double what is being proposed. Done as a single block it would have maximal utility.

I do get why they've split the park space in two, its because they want to leave the existing mall as-is, and its a barrier for any residents on the Sheppard side to reach a park north of the mall, outside of Mall Hours, there's also a certain distance involved as well, if the park is meant as convenient for a quick dog walk in winter etc.

That said, this whole thing is hamstrung by the absolutely dumb idea of retaining the mall.

I have no problem with a mall on-site, but it should be 3-4 storeys, not two, and take up about 1/2 the current area, it should then be consolidated to one side of the site, so that a proper street grid can be delivered.

****

The Toronto Parkland standard is 28m2 per person, the suggestion in this proposal is up to 12,000 residents could call this site home. That would require parkland of just over 33ha, which is to say, larger than the entire site.

In light of that, I think the City should spend some acquisition money here, and expand the northern park to at least 1.5ha, and the site overall to 2ha.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't expect Fairview Mall to go anywhere anytime soon, it's more of a "regional" mall per se which is right by 2 major highways and a subway which all act as major anchors. Long term it makes sense for Cadillac to retain the mall's existing footprint; it's only going to get busier in the future. But one can certainly debate whether to build it up more for sure.

My bigger beef is the parking structure particularity the one on the Sheppard/Don Mills corner. I realize the subway box and bus terminal are right underneath, but there has to be some way to get rid of it and create something else in it's place. It would be very costly, which is probably why they're being cheap and not planning on doing anything about it.

While I see your point as to why they may be considering the park space on the south end of the site plan, it just infuriates me because I already know what's going to come of having that kind of space. It's position and size makes it useless in my view.
 
Amare said:
I wouldn't expect Fairview Mall to go anywhere anytime soon, it's more of a "regional" mall per se which is right by 2 major highways and a subway which all act as major anchors. Long term it makes sense for Cadillac to retain the mall's existing footprint; it's only going to get busier in the future. But one can certainly debate whether to build it up more for sure.
Click to expand...

I agree about retaining ' a mall', just not the current footprint, it makes a mess of any logical build out of the site. Its not like fixing that requires closing the existing mall prior to its replacement. There's lots of open space here.

Amare said:
My bigger beef is the parking structure particularity the one on the Sheppard/Don Mills corner. I realize the subway box and bus terminal are right underneath, but there has to be some way to get rid of it and create something else in it's place. It would be very costly, which is probably why they're being cheap and not planning on doing anything about it.
Click to expand...

Speaking of space on which the current mall could be rebuilt!

Amare said:
While I see your point as to why they may be considering the park space on the south end of the site plan, it just infuriates me because I already know what's going to come of having that kind of space. It's position and size makes it useless in my view.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. Not disagreeing. I mean, its possible to design a good small park..........but do I trust CF...........or the City..............yah.....
 
This article from Retail Insider brings up two good points that are relevant here: that older regional malls are attracting a lot of very large entertainment uses to complement retail and that if there aren’t vacancies they are starting to built complexes on the roofs. I see something like that here so they have options with the mall itself despite a regrettable footprint.

retail-insider.com

Empty Retail Spaces Transform into Entertainment Hubs as Shopping Centers Evolve: Avison Young

Shopping centres are adapting to retail sector changes by repurposing vacant spaces, particularly former department stores, into diverse entertainment, leisure, and technology-driven experiences to attract visitors and boost engagement.
retail-insider.com retail-insider.com
 
Northern Light said:
This Official Plan Amendment for this one is the subject of a Decision Report - Approval recommended to the next meeting of NYCC:

Click to expand...
"The development proposal for the subject site proposes that 3% of all new residential gross floor area will be secured as affordable housing for a minimum affordability period of 40 years. The affordable housing units will be provided at a similar pace as the market units have a unit mix that reflects the market component of the development and rent for each unit will not exceed affordable rent as defined in the Official Plan."

1729097152697.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top