DopeyFish said:
@Amare

Heard back from Mark Grimes

apparently it's not going to be 1000 beds but maybe 100...

the thought is it could be a womens shelter
Click to expand...
Let's see if he's consistent with his messaging, i'll send him a note over the coming days and see what he says. He's not really the most trustworthy councillor out there, especially when he basically almost allowed this to slip through with 0 community awareness whatsoever.

Depending of the type of shelter space it is, the neighborhood will either be in full out opposition and detest it, or will be more understanding.
 
Amare said:
Let's see if he's consistent with his messaging, i'll send him a note over the coming days and see what he says. He's not really the most trustworthy councillor out there, especially when he basically almost allowed this to slip through with 0 community awareness whatsoever.

Depending of the type of shelter space it is, the neighborhood will either be in full out opposition and detest it, or will be more understanding.
Click to expand...

for some odd reason everyone loves womens shelters so if it is, i don't expect tons of opposition considering there's already a couple in the area
 
i have heard that the city is no longer pursuing this location for a shelter

so now to find out if it's going to continue to be developed as merlin residences or not

edit:

here we go


We would like to provide you with an update on the property we were pursuing at 2950+2970 Lake Shore Blvd West. After a comprehensive due diligence process, the City of Toronto will no longer be acquiring the property. The decision not to proceed with the acquisition is a reflection of information gained during the City's diligence review of the site, including building condition assessments and environmental assessments. It was determined that the City would not be able to proceed with the renovation and activation of the site within the Council approved budget and project timeline required for the acquisition
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wow this completely slipped my radar somehow, I forgot to provide the update I received from Grimes a few months back (prior to the organized community consultation that was setup due to community backlash).

I guess the update would be kind of moot regardless if the city is indeed no longer pursuing this. I haven't officially heard anything yet, but if that's true i'm happy with the decision. There is definitely a need for shelter spacing, but this area is already saturated with shelters for one. Secondly, until this city starts getting serious about providing more affordable/transitional housing (asides from the laughable densities they propose on city owned land), I dont want to hear a peep from them about the pressing need for shelters.

There's a pressing need for affordable housing, and it's time the city stops playing games with the issue.
 
Well here's an update, it's official: the city is no longer pursuing a shelter on site.

And to think the city was inches away from sneaking this purchase through without anyone in the public being aware of the transaction.

Capture.JPG


EDIT: @DopeyFish has the full letter attached above
 
Amare said:
Well here's an update, it's official: the city is no longer pursuing a shelter on site.

And to think the city was inches away from sneaking this purchase through without anyone in the public being aware of the transaction.

View attachment 286706

EDIT: @DopeyFish has the full letter attached above
Click to expand...

it's going to suck if the people behind merlin don't continue their plans

the building that's there sucks and something needs to be done with it... it's an eyesore and nobody is using it anymore.
 
^Pretty accurate depiction of the state of affairs as to how poorly this development would tie into the existing framework of the neighbourhood.

On the topic of the apartment blocks to the north of this site, honestly they need to be redeveloped. The 1970's style, cold and sterile long block apartment form isnt a pleasant contribution to the neighbourhood at all (of course asides from the housing it provides).

1620228540902.png
 
Amare said:
^Pretty accurate depiction of the state of affairs as to how poorly this development would tie into the existing framework of the neighbourhood.

On the topic of the apartment blocks to the north of this site, honestly they need to be redeveloped. The 1970's style, cold and sterile long block apartment form isnt a pleasant contribution to the neighbourhood at all (of course asides from the housing it provides).

View attachment 317370
Click to expand...

Whoa...........that's a 166M long uninterrupted streetwall.

That would be excessive if this were an exquisitely designed set of buildings; that that is not so..............is....unfortunate.

Ideally, this would see redevelopment; as would the abutting properties on Islington.

The challenge, of course, is how one would retain the affordable housing, unless the buyer were the public sector.

Though I certainly seem room for greater height; I don't see that room as so great as to make the economics work if the that much affordable housing had to be retained.

****

That said, if that issue could be addressed, then at the same time it would be nice to see at least one new E-W street across the site connecting to Islington; and a reduction in curb to curb road width from 11.75m to something more like 8; allowing for a sidewalk on the west side of the road, at least one tree-lined boulevard.

However, I think the Fire Department might object to my shrinking a street w/one of their stations on it.........
 
I think the building should stay put - and the tenants shouldn't be displaced in order to make the area more aesthetically appealing to urbanists. Those long yellow buildings aren't pretty, but they're a rent controlled home to a lot of people.
 
DavidCapizzano said:
I think the building should stay put - and the tenants shouldn't be displaced in order to make the area more aesthetically appealing to urbanists. Those long yellow buildings aren't pretty, but they're a rent controlled home to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone advocated mass displacement of the tenants; nor did anyone suggest removing affordable housing.

The suggestion was that it would be nice if that housing could be provided in a different form.

Those apartments almost certainly don't meet accessibility standards; are likely poor performers environmentally, and it would be nice if those concerns and broader concerns about community-building, which aren't merely limited to aesthetics, but to block-size, easy access to transportation services, shopping etc. could be addressed in tandem.

That said, I'm the first to admit, that would be a challenge.
 
Surprise we have a block of ole skool apartments that reaches to infinity, goodness...
 
Anyone redeveloping the site would be required to build the same number of rental replacement units as exists now, with the same number of bedrooms in each suite, and with the suites being of similar size. The current residents would be displaced over the redevelopment period but would be given first right to occupy a replacement suite at the same rental rate they had, inflation adjusted, for a period of 20 years.

The developer would have to be granted enough additional density on the site to make the above economically feasible for anything to happen there.

42
 
@Northern Light and @interchange42 pretty much hit all the points regarding the existing housing stock north of the property we're discussing here.

If CAPREIT (the owner of the apartment block we're talking about) was an ambitious REIT, im sure they would've explored the potential of 2950 and 2970 Lake Shore Blvd for a larger play. They're not really known for that unfortunately, so unless they sell i dont think much will be changing here which is a shame. Many people as of late have been pushing for yellowbelt intensification, but I dont see the need for that especially when we have sprawling low-rise apartment blocks which can be redeveloped.

For reference in addition to the huge apartment block i outlined, CAPREIT also owns the property in red so there would be huge potential here since they would have have the room to play with landwise:

1620252216560.png
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top