- Thread starter pipolchap
- Start date
amnesiajune
Senior Member
I wonder if this application is going to be withdrawn now that the province is forcing cities to increase density targets with 500 meters of subway stations. Everything west to Beaman Road, south to the Petro-Canada station and east to Kenneth Avenue would fall into that zone.
The proposed new rules don't mean that everything within 500 metres of a subway station is suddenly going to go high-rise. It means that if the City allows new density on sites within 500 metres of a subway station, appeals won't be allowed based on the increased density granted.
In the meantime, Grmada Holdings have invested time and money into working this out. This is already slightly larger now than it was in the initial submission. I assume that means that the mediation at the OMB back in March has led to a settlement to allow what you see here. A hearing is coming up at the OMB in July, which I assume will be to ratify the settlement with all finer-point details worked out.
42
In the meantime, Grmada Holdings have invested time and money into working this out. This is already slightly larger now than it was in the initial submission. I assume that means that the mediation at the OMB back in March has led to a settlement to allow what you see here. A hearing is coming up at the OMB in July, which I assume will be to ratify the settlement with all finer-point details worked out.
42
amnesiajune
Senior Member
From what I understand, they also force cities to set certain density targets within 500 meters of a subway, LRT or GO Train station.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
yes. The idea is that all municipal policies have to follow provincial plans, and the updated growth plan which comes into force July 1 sets out quite high minimum densities around transit stations.
That means that Municipalities can set out new plans surrounding transit stations, but if they do, they have to meet that target. And promptly cannot be appealed. It means that the municipalities can't set out plans around transit stations with unrealistically low density targets to appeal NIMBYs, but developers also can't appeal any municipal plan on the excuse of "but transit" and build ridiculous amounts of density.
And frankly the minimum densities set out in the growth plan are startlingly high. Many areas like the Bloor-Danforth line will really struggle to meet the minimum densities in a contextually sensitive way. IIRC subway stations are minimum 200 people / jobs per hectare, and most of Bloor / Danforth probably sits around 50 people/jobs per hectare. To get to 200 is going to need some major intensification, far beyond a few midrises here and there, like the cities current plans are for.
Places like Yonge / Eglinton however can be more controlled. Yonge Eglinton is already at 200 people / jobs per hectare once everything approved gets built, so now municipalities can move to cap development to prevent overcrowding.
That means that Municipalities can set out new plans surrounding transit stations, but if they do, they have to meet that target. And promptly cannot be appealed. It means that the municipalities can't set out plans around transit stations with unrealistically low density targets to appeal NIMBYs, but developers also can't appeal any municipal plan on the excuse of "but transit" and build ridiculous amounts of density.
And frankly the minimum densities set out in the growth plan are startlingly high. Many areas like the Bloor-Danforth line will really struggle to meet the minimum densities in a contextually sensitive way. IIRC subway stations are minimum 200 people / jobs per hectare, and most of Bloor / Danforth probably sits around 50 people/jobs per hectare. To get to 200 is going to need some major intensification, far beyond a few midrises here and there, like the cities current plans are for.
Places like Yonge / Eglinton however can be more controlled. Yonge Eglinton is already at 200 people / jobs per hectare once everything approved gets built, so now municipalities can move to cap development to prevent overcrowding.
Momin
Senior Member
Approved at OMB it seems.
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
Nope,.... Never any settlement from March 2017 Pre-Hearing at OMB.
Grmada Holdings basically won July 2017 OMB Hearing,.... pending resolution of fees and Section 37 Community Benefits with City (City no doubt want more than the 25' strip to increase size of AlbertStanding Park next door). Official OMB decision:
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/ecs/CaseDetail.aspx?n=PL151222
Grmada Holdings is a BS company,... Grmada Holdings never developed or built anything ever! Grmada Holdings can't even build a proper grass lawn (Grmada Holdings' fat-cat principal owner is in the grass-sod business - this little sleazeball is right out of a Hollywood casting office for thick-accent underworld boss with hairy chest, thick gold chain and hands full of diamond rings driving a black and grey Rolls-Royce!). Grmada Holdings is really just a front for a monopoly player,.... who just acquires land to form larger parcels of land with hopes to up-zone the land to sell for more profit,... that's it. Don't expect this building as rendered (and approved by OMB) to ever be built! The land will be sold to a real developer/builder who'll come in,...... with their own design.
The problem for the City and community now is,.... as per my previous post from last year,... one of the main desire of the City is to acquire as much land from this developer to expand AlbertStanding Park next door which will have a new city Community Centre with Lansing United Church with Non-Profit Child Care facility soon. The on-site parkland dedication amounted to a measly 25 feet strip of land out of this 200' wide lot. The current AlbertStanding Park is an office park (as per Park formation due to community benefits from NestleBuilding phase 1&2,....with benches, tables and 2 water fountains,... one of which needed so much repairs the City gave up, filled it up with dirt and converted it to the mother of all flower pots). The City wanted more land here to build larger family-oriented park with children playground, outdoor recreational facilities and public realm improvements for the new Community Centre and non-profit child care facility.
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/toronto-53-63-sheppard-west-49m-14s-wzmh.23936/#post-1078408
Note: When Edithvale Community Centre being built a few years ago, City required area developers to acquire adjacent lots to convey to City for parkland that's why now there's a large park at Edithvale Community Centre! That additional parkland around Edithvale Community Centre hosts children playgrounds, movie night area, community theatre, fire pit, outdoor natural ice rink, basketball court, etc,....
But now with OMB approval basically giving everything the applicant desired,... this site instantly became 2-3 times more valuable than before the OMB decision,..... which makes it basically impossible for the City to acquire any extra land here on this site to expand AlbertStanding Park. Sure the City can just direct other developer to acquire this land to convey to the City for their parkland dedication as done for Edithvale Community Centre,.... but now for the same amount of developer money, the City can direct these other developers to acquire 3 times as much land elsewhere for another park!!!
This OMB win for Grmada Holdings (monopoly player) who won't even build anything here,..... is really just a huge lost for the City and community!
Last edited:
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
OMB approval being appealed/challenged by City,.... that's why still open status
Last edited:
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Fieldgate Urban just picked this up.
isaidso
Senior Member
Shocking how it transitions from urban to suburban in literally 1 block. I suppose it has to considering what's 1-2 blocks further.
Sky High Arch
New Member
The City is planning improvements to Albert Standing Park and is engaging the community to determine enhancements that will meet the needs of park users. Survey Open till April 5th 2021. In the survey it mentions the possibly to expand the park.
https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...evelopment/albert-standing-park-improvements/
Project Timeline
- 2021: Community visioning and hiring a designer
- 2022: Community engagement
- 2023 to 2024: Construction
https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...evelopment/albert-standing-park-improvements/
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
With regards to expansion of Albert Standing Park,....
At the OMB/LPAT approval - both this land-assembler/applicant and City agree that there should be on-site parkland dedication adjacent to Albert Standing Park. The issue is where! The OMB/LPAT decision was for 50' along Bogert and nothing along Sheppard Ave West. The City of Toronto is appealing this aspect of the OMB/LPAT decision - the City insist on 25' along Bogert and 25' along Sheppard West on grounds OMB/LPAT was wrong in shifting on-site parkland dedication only onto Bogert and not Sheppard . Since the 14-storey is along Sheppard while only 4-storey townhouse along Bogert - City getting 25' along Sheppard would lower the total number of units more than just along Bogert.
July 4, 2017:
The March 19, 2020 OMB/LPAT Status Update Meeting was Cancelled - likely due to Covid and the sale of this site - in which case it seems the on-site parkland dedication may be decided via City Planning Redevelopment Application process from the new owner FieldGateUrban
At the OMB/LPAT approval - both this land-assembler/applicant and City agree that there should be on-site parkland dedication adjacent to Albert Standing Park. The issue is where! The OMB/LPAT decision was for 50' along Bogert and nothing along Sheppard Ave West. The City of Toronto is appealing this aspect of the OMB/LPAT decision - the City insist on 25' along Bogert and 25' along Sheppard West on grounds OMB/LPAT was wrong in shifting on-site parkland dedication only onto Bogert and not Sheppard . Since the 14-storey is along Sheppard while only 4-storey townhouse along Bogert - City getting 25' along Sheppard would lower the total number of units more than just along Bogert.
July 4, 2017:
The March 19, 2020 OMB/LPAT Status Update Meeting was Cancelled - likely due to Covid and the sale of this site - in which case it seems the on-site parkland dedication may be decided via City Planning Redevelopment Application process from the new owner FieldGateUrban
Last edited:
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
The City’s Albert Standing Park Improvement project was cancelled a few months ago. “Official Reason” cited by City is - from survey results, the Community didn’t want any park improvements at Albert Standing Park. That’s pure BS! The park improvement options the City offered to the Community are based on the park remaining an “Office Park” (heavy on park benches and picnic tables to encourage local office workers to enjoy the park) VS a “Neighbourhood Park” (children playground & exercise stations) thanks better suited for the adjacent Lansing United Church with Community Space and Non-Profit Day-Care facilities.
Anyways, it’s too late to shift from “Office Park” to “Neighbourhood Park” to show real progress in time for next Fall municipal election,..... so Councillor’s Office cancelled Albert Standing Park Improvement project. Could be rescheduled about 3 years from now in time for the 2026 municipal election,..... but much more likely to be rescheduled about 7 years from now to show results for the 2030 municipal election - you’ll see exactly why later!!!
Anyways, it’s too late to shift from “Office Park” to “Neighbourhood Park” to show real progress in time for next Fall municipal election,..... so Councillor’s Office cancelled Albert Standing Park Improvement project. Could be rescheduled about 3 years from now in time for the 2026 municipal election,..... but much more likely to be rescheduled about 7 years from now to show results for the 2030 municipal election - you’ll see exactly why later!!!
Last edited:
sunnyraytoronto
Senior Member
Previous Grmada Holdings approval at OMB:
14-storey 42.5m 48.9% coverage
4.9FSI 20,467m2 residential vs 639m2 retail (97% vs 3%)
101 1-bedroom, 69 2-bedroom, 13 3-bedroom (55.2% vs 37.7% vs 7.1%)
183 total units
Current - FieldGate Urban
16-storey 48.10m
5.22FSI 22,000m2 residential vs 200m2 retail (99% vs 1%)
285 1-Bedroom, 57 2-bedroom, 39 3-bedroom (74.8% vs 15.0% vs 10.2%)
381 total units
@mods need to update title to: 53 Sheppard West | 48.1m | 16s | FieldGate Urban | IBI Group
source: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=H+iF5nMFcP+dl2LdULatyA==
- FieldGate Urban generally kept the same built form that Grmada Holdings Inc got approved at OMB - but added 2-storey to the approved 14-storey 42.5m on Sheppard, increasing it to 16-storey at 48.1m; keeping the 4-storey townhouses on Bogert - this increases the floor area from 21,106m2 to 22,200m2 and density from 4.9FSI to 5.22FSI
4-storey townhouses along adjacent north-side of Bogert Ave:
- within similar built form, how did FieldGate Urban's 381 units more than double Grmada Holdings' 183 units? Whereas most of Grmada Holdings' unit size were about 650-1100sqft (not including Penthouse), FieldGate Urban split most of these condo unit size in half to 300-800sqft! Some of these 1-bedroom are sub-300sqft Studio micro condo units! 292 sqft, 293 sqft, 298 sqft here! For those who can't afford a 600sqft 1-bedroom condo,.... here you can buy half of it!!!
NOTE: 276 sqft at Urban Capital Property Group's Smart House (215 Queen St West) is the smallest in the City! The Modular Supportive Housing Units at 175 Cummer are 236-253sqft!
- the smaller units likely generate higher per square footage sale price and profit - thus, developers try to make smaller 1 bedroom units VS 2+bedroom Family Units
- FieldGate Urban seems to have partnered with Daniels Corp on this project - Daniels Corp did the initial 3 phases of 5 for Regent Park rebuild
- on-site Section 42 parkland dedication is 50 feet lot along Bogert directly west of Albert Standing Park with nothing along Sheppard (City wanted 25' on Bogert and 25' on Sheppard to reduce condo size!)
- this parkland dedication is adjacent to their non-enclosed courtyard between Bogert townhouse and Sheppard condo tower - which would act as Privately Owned Public Space (POPS); underground garage directly underneath - thus, every 40 year this POPS would have to be ripped apart to replace the waterproofing above this section of the underground garage
- NOTE: City of Toronto has a Albert Standing Park Improvement/ReBuild project - Office Park VS Neighbourhood Park,.... this project was put on hold a few months ago - while this Revision was making it's way through City Planning towards Official Submission - thus, I suspect the main reason was to clarify if the on-site Section 42 Parkland Dedication will just be the adjacent 50' along Bogert VS 25' on Bogert and 25' on Sheppard
www.toronto.ca
14-storey 42.5m 48.9% coverage
4.9FSI 20,467m2 residential vs 639m2 retail (97% vs 3%)
101 1-bedroom, 69 2-bedroom, 13 3-bedroom (55.2% vs 37.7% vs 7.1%)
183 total units
Current - FieldGate Urban
16-storey 48.10m
5.22FSI 22,000m2 residential vs 200m2 retail (99% vs 1%)
285 1-Bedroom, 57 2-bedroom, 39 3-bedroom (74.8% vs 15.0% vs 10.2%)
381 total units
@mods need to update title to: 53 Sheppard West | 48.1m | 16s | FieldGate Urban | IBI Group
source: http://app.toronto.ca/AIC/index.do?folderRsn=H+iF5nMFcP+dl2LdULatyA==
- FieldGate Urban generally kept the same built form that Grmada Holdings Inc got approved at OMB - but added 2-storey to the approved 14-storey 42.5m on Sheppard, increasing it to 16-storey at 48.1m; keeping the 4-storey townhouses on Bogert - this increases the floor area from 21,106m2 to 22,200m2 and density from 4.9FSI to 5.22FSI
4-storey townhouses along adjacent north-side of Bogert Ave:
- within similar built form, how did FieldGate Urban's 381 units more than double Grmada Holdings' 183 units? Whereas most of Grmada Holdings' unit size were about 650-1100sqft (not including Penthouse), FieldGate Urban split most of these condo unit size in half to 300-800sqft! Some of these 1-bedroom are sub-300sqft Studio micro condo units! 292 sqft, 293 sqft, 298 sqft here! For those who can't afford a 600sqft 1-bedroom condo,.... here you can buy half of it!!!
NOTE: 276 sqft at Urban Capital Property Group's Smart House (215 Queen St West) is the smallest in the City! The Modular Supportive Housing Units at 175 Cummer are 236-253sqft!
- the smaller units likely generate higher per square footage sale price and profit - thus, developers try to make smaller 1 bedroom units VS 2+bedroom Family Units
- FieldGate Urban seems to have partnered with Daniels Corp on this project - Daniels Corp did the initial 3 phases of 5 for Regent Park rebuild
- on-site Section 42 parkland dedication is 50 feet lot along Bogert directly west of Albert Standing Park with nothing along Sheppard (City wanted 25' on Bogert and 25' on Sheppard to reduce condo size!)
- this parkland dedication is adjacent to their non-enclosed courtyard between Bogert townhouse and Sheppard condo tower - which would act as Privately Owned Public Space (POPS); underground garage directly underneath - thus, every 40 year this POPS would have to be ripped apart to replace the waterproofing above this section of the underground garage
- NOTE: City of Toronto has a Albert Standing Park Improvement/ReBuild project - Office Park VS Neighbourhood Park,.... this project was put on hold a few months ago - while this Revision was making it's way through City Planning towards Official Submission - thus, I suspect the main reason was to clarify if the on-site Section 42 Parkland Dedication will just be the adjacent 50' along Bogert VS 25' on Bogert and 25' on Sheppard
Albert Standing Park Improvements
Review the most recent survey results for this project in the Project Updates section. The City is planning improvements to Albert Standing Park and is engaging the community to determine enhancements that will meet the needs of park users Project Timeline 2021: Community visioning and hiring a...
www.toronto.ca