Also - this site has existing as-of-right permissions for some big towers dating from the 1990's when the Loblaws was built. Townhouses was never an option here - the approved scheme from my understanding is more or less the same scale of the as of right condition which had similar height towers, just in two buildings with massive floorplates. I'll see if I can dig up the old bylaw..
 
Developers were able to increase the height and add the towers because of the Ford transit hub move using this as a reason for doing so. Don't forget, the original plan before the gasoline leak was reported in 2001 was for a townhouse development which would have been more in scale with the neighbourhoods to the south, west and north. When the townhouse development was abandoned because they could not build on the contaminated land, things changed, others moved in and the condos on the south and west side were approved. I believe the 1467 Bathurst Street project was put forward as apartment towers in 2018 at a lower height (the upper 30+ add on was approved in Community Council in 2020 I believe. The amendments went through without many in the area knowing about it. Did you know about them?
@Northern Light is far more patient than I, and has well laid out both the policy context as well as the site-specific permissions for the site, the latter of which @innsertnamehere correctly confirms.

I'd just add: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2020/law0648.pdf (that's the site-specific by-law setting permissions for towers of 35, 32, and 31 storeys - not townhouses - in stone).
 
@Northern Light is far more patient than I, and has well laid out both the policy context as well as the site-specific permissions for the site, the latter of which @innsertnamehere correctly confirms.

I'd just add: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2020/law0648.pdf (that's the site-specific by-law setting permissions for towers of 35, 32, and 31 storeys - not townhouses - in stone).
That's the implementing by-law for the new proposal..

This is the old 438-86 by-law for the site. Unfortunately the site is split zoned and I can't find the old City of York 1-83 by-law for it, which covers the majority of the site.. but you can get an idea for the general scale of as-of-right density here from 1991. 18,000sm (193,000sf) of floor area is permitted on the southern third of the site alone..

 
My concerns are related to the large looming presence over St. Mikes school
Just coming back to this because I don't think anyone else has pointed it out... This land was owned by St Mike's, and they literally sold it as a developable parcel with the densities described here. This development is not only okay with St Mike's, but they're an active partner with the developer. And given their own intent to intensify their site they certainly haven't resisted any nearby developments. They actually lent some space for staging the construction of The Heathview as a quid pro quo (the developer offered some VIP access to staff in exchange).

So don't clutch your pearls over shadowing on their campus. They know what they're doing
 


forets.JPG




From an email by Canderel:


fote.JPG
 
Last edited:
Just coming back to this because I don't think anyone else has pointed it out... This land was owned by St Mike's, and they literally sold it as a developable parcel with the densities described here. This development is not only okay with St Mike's, but they're an active partner with the developer. And given their own intent to intensify their site they certainly haven't resisted any nearby developments. They actually lent some space for staging the construction of The Heathview as a quid pro quo (the developer offered some VIP access to staff in exchange).

So don't clutch your pearls over shadowing on their campus. They know what they're doing
Yes, 'whatever'. whatever you say. Don't really care about their active involvement. St. Mike's also had the gas station which leaked across the street and east of it. Certainly, knew what they are doing. It was leaking in the late 90's and nobody including the City of Toronto addressed it until 2001 in a City/Suncor document. I know you won't be clutching your pearls over that one....
 
Last edited:
That's the implementing by-law for the new proposal..

This is the old 438-86 by-law for the site. Unfortunately the site is split zoned and I can't find the old City of York 1-83 by-law for it, which covers the majority of the site.. but you can get an idea for the general scale of as-of-right density here from 1991. 18,000sm (193,000sf) of floor area is permitted on the southern third of the site alone..


Also - this site has existing as-of-right permissions for some big towers dating from the 1990's when the Loblaws was built. Townhouses was never an option here - the approved scheme from my understanding is more or less the same scale of the as of right condition which had similar height towers, just in two buildings with massive floorplates. I'll see if I can dig up the old bylaw..
That's the implementing by-law for the new proposal..

This is the old 438-86 by-law for the site. Unfortunately the site is split zoned and I can't find the old City of York 1-83 by-law for it, which covers the majority of the site.. but you can get an idea for the general scale of as-of-right density here from 1991. 18,000sm (193,000sf) of floor area is permitted on the southern third of the site alone..

Thank you, Project End and Insert Name for bringing this into the conversation --I did check out the link you mentioned and saw lots of zoning for a multi-use property including a supermarket. Took a look at the two maps and also saw amongst this material, as part of the proposal-- this "the number of dwelling units does not exceed 127". It is all quite confusing.

It looks like everything but the kitchen sink was allowed for and I have no idea what dwelling units they are talking about so really clumsy and irresponsible move by City Planning to allow all that. In any event, this goes back to my original concerns about the environmental issues which clearly do not matter to you. Putting up a development of this size on that corner will not enhance the area, help green space, infrastructure or traffic congestion. Just because it is allowed does not make it responsible development.
Incidentally another piece of history --somebody told me that Loblaws was build on a landfill dump that existed there in 1940's. Don't know if that is true. There was a proposed development plan for the vacant site and gas station in 1988 by Bedford Green Estates - that may have been the townhouse plan. It appears BGE went into default about two years later with Royal Bank of Canada. If not, then the townhouse plan might have been floated around in the late 1990's. The gas station was only dismantled about 10-11 years ago even after the leak was highlighted by the City in 2001.
 
Last edited:
somebody told me that Loblaws was build on a landfill dump that existed there in 1940's. Don't know if that is true.

The site on which the loblaws is located was originally a ravine valley that connected the Cedarvale Ravine to the Nordheimer Ravine on the south side of St. Clair.

That ravine section was indeed used as a garbage dump for a period of time............ you can see that in this image below:

1653772863822.png


From the Toronto Archives, via Urban Toronto! https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2010/04/then-and-now-st-clair-and-bathurst


That's Castlefrank Creek at the bottom. It still exists in a tunnel pipe running underneath the current complex.
 
The site on which the loblaws is located was originally a ravine valley that connected the Cedarvale Ravine to the Nordheimer Ravine on the south side of St. Clair.

That ravine section was indeed used as a garbage dump for a period of time............ you can see that in this image below:

View attachment 403038

From the Toronto Archives, via Urban Toronto! https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2010/04/then-and-now-st-clair-and-bathurst


That's Castlefrank Creek at the bottom. It still exists in a tunnel pipe running underneath the current complex.
Thank you for that amazing link regarding St. Clair and Bathurst. I did not know that Loblaws had been there since the 70's . I must have driven by it so many times and it did not register. I only started to live in this area in the late 90's. Do you know anything about Bedford Green Estates and what they wanted to build on the 1467 Bathurst Street site in 1988? Nothing comes up when I do a search.
 
Because you reference the Ford government's 'transit hubs' as having something to do with the height here.

Let's offer some clarity.

By transit hub, what you are meaning in Planning jargon is an MTSA or Major Transit Station Area.
The idea of MTSAs was not even on the table from the province when the current height was approved.
There were zero MTSAs proposed or in force.



Uhhh, sorta.

Ok, 'Height Allowance' should be understood as permitted height under the Zoning by-law.

There are existing zoning by-laws that cover every property in the City.

In most cases where one sees a planning Application that involves a ZBA (Zoning By-Law Amendment) a height increase is being sought. (Though not always)

Planning reviews the request, and considers this in the context of a number of policies in the City's Official Plan; and various Provincial planning mandates, which now include the above-mentioned MTSAs, but did not at the time this proposal was being finalized.

The local councillor and community are consulted.

But Planning (generally) has to make a recommendation based on approved policy; though admittedly this can be torqued from time to time.

The City does routinely oppose height requests seen as unreasonable; however, as also noted above, developers have the option of appealing a Council decision (or indecision) to a Provincial Review body, previously known as the OMB and LPAT and now known as the OLT or Ontario Land Tribunal.

That body does have an overall tendency to be development friendly, and the City must be mindful of losing completely should a proposal come before said Tribunal for a hearing. As such it is often the case that the City works out either an initial approval, or a pre-hearing settlement based on what they they think would likely be approved.



The permitted density on this site has involved at least two 25 storey towers for the last 24 years as per this article:


From the above:

View attachment 402686

Yes, a further height/density increase was later obtained.

However, there are multiple factors at play as to why; it's not a rubber stamp from anyone.

In the (presumably) final iteration now before us, the site was reorganized in order to optimize parks and open space.

That may or may not be to your liking; or good planning from your perspective. Debate is fair.

But to be clear a trade was made to obtain benefits for the community in exchange for certain changes to massing (the way the density is shaped on the site) .

That's both a political and planning call; with the former almost certainly informed by a Councillor's desire to be reelected, which is to say, the Councillor felt this was the best
deal to be had; and in fact went out selling it as a pretty good one. He and we will find out how much his constituents agree this November.
Yes, we will indeed find out in November.

The change to the height of the towers was made and voted on a couple of years ago, first in the community council meeting.
As I said, first it was a proposed apartment development with affordable housing included. Bentall was the partner then. The proposed Seniors Center & Daycare were the size of a postage stamp in relation to the size of the buildings and any community members having access would find better places to engage with children or seniors

You are right, the Councillor may have thought this was the best deal moving forward but then in a community council meeting, affordable housing was argued about in terms of the units that were to be given, and at that council meeting a request was made to increase the height of the towers. That was a couple of years ago. Now there is condo development, no affordable housing and a park which is intended as part of the property according to Canderel (which I seriously doubt will even look like a park or ever happen) -- there were not many public consultations. I only recall one in 2019 that took place in the Forest Hill Village. There were other Zoom meetings during the pandemic where arguments were made.

Yes, you are right City Planning does occasionally try to fight height and there was a recent example on Prince Arthur where developers wanted to move in and build something of a certain height. They lost on that as the Tribunal viewed their project as one that did not fit on the street. Residents fought this for a long time and finally won.

I'm pretty sure that there was a townhouse development that was planned for the site as this was told to me by somebody who works at City Hall. That would have been more in keeping with the area failing that, perhaps just one 25 story building if there had to be height.

The idea for building such a massive development I believe, was also so that people could be closer to the downtown area to go to work in office buildings. Guess what, there is going to be a serious commercial leasing problem henceforth because a lot of companies don't care if their employees come to the office or not. Of course, that is not the case in banking though I think banking will become more virtual in years to come.

If you don't believe that developing these massive commercial, retail and residential projects with high towers is not affecting the climate and overshadowing the city then there's no point in discussing it anymore. We are both entitled to our opinions.
.This present development is not good for the area and will not do anything to enhance it. That is my opinion.
 
Last edited:
Oh goodness, this one is going to be very very rough.

Well at least they're being honest about all the nasty grey spandrel we're going to be getting...
 

Back
Top