thaivic
Active Member
Wasted opportunity to get more affordable rental unit’s.
Last edited:
- Thread starter DonValleyRainbow
- Start date
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
They heard that "Wasted opportunity" comment pretty loud and clear tonight, from multiple speakers.
...way too much stuff was traded away due to Planning Policy, and I am guessing "active" neighbours at WATERCLUB CONDO on Councillor Cressy's Local Advisory Group....
Start Fox
Active Member
I'm genuinely confused about the economics of this. The site was marketed as being suited for two towers of 55 and 45 stories. It was bought for $100 million. The original proposal was for 95,000 residential GFA. This is for 60,000 residential GFA. Does that imply the site was sold for less than it should/could have been sold for, or that the developer is taking a big hit to their expected profit by going from two towers to one tower?
C-mac
Senior Member
I'm totally confused as to why the city continues do this during a housing crisis. We need more of all type of housing ASAP. Condo's, houses, rental units. We just need to have more density or else things are going to go from bad to worse.
Last edited:
Bjays92
Senior Member
This is where city planning no doubt needs to be more flexible. The first proposal was miles ahead of this one and there's no reason it couldn't have worked.
Until the rules are changed, the Planners at the City still have to work within them. They cannot review applications and declare "doesn't conform to rules X, Y, and Z, but who really thinks those are worthwhile anyway?" This is up to Council to fix. They make the rules. If they cannot evolve them, then the Province can step in if they wish.
42
Northern Light
Superstar
Here's the catch-22.
In order to have staff be flexible, you need to abolish the OLT or make it very difficult to access, such that 'precedent' won't be held against the City.
That's the concern.
We can all bemoan that staff can be officious in following the guidelines/rules instead of making prudent trade-offs; but we've got a culture that says, when we do that, the OLT (nee OMB/LPAT) automatically awards that same height, built-form or other exceptions to every other developer/applicant w/o the same trade-offs in play.
There are people in Planning would like to have that kind of flexibility, but it ain't happening in the current circumstance.
****
Edit to add, this is an issue in different forms across City Divisions.
An an example, 'Ravine Planners' once made one-off deals that allowed exceptions to guidelines on tree preservation or replacement ratios based on logical, distinct circumstances.
So, for instance a competing objective of preserving a heritage building, or addressing the needs of a lower-income senior homeowner etc might have once been allowed to 'bend' the guidelines/rules.
Today that's almost never the case; it's 'Thou Shalt not' period; and if tree replacement is the order of the day, the City may insist on replacing trees on site even when that results in the trees not growing properly (too close together) and it makes no rational sense.
This happened because applicants saw different interpretations of the rules depending on the situation/planner/office (which district) and complained when one got cut some slack and another did not.
So now the City tries to enforce the same rules, everywhere, for everyone even when it doesn't make sense.
The City does not want staff to have to justify using 'discretion' so they don't allow much, if any.,
Last edited:
allengeorge
Senior Member
This forum really needs a "thinking" response 
RonThom
Active Member
480 fewer homes including 26 fewer affordable homes.
what rules did the first application not follow?
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
They followed all of the RULES ---- the planners are enforcing the GUIDELINES.
Sorry for inadvertently stumbling over the semantic trip hazard. So, to be clear, the Planners also have to hew to the Department's guidelines as well.
So, why did Diamond and Lifetime cave to what are just guidelines then? Because the OLT has been treating them like they might be rules in recent cases?
42
Last edited:
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
I don't know the nature of the Canada Lands "terms of sale" - but on the CreateTO lands (and the old Build Toronto land-sale deals) - the buyer signed a contract that EXCLUDED them from ever appealing to the OMB/OLT, etc.
We saw that on the RICHVIEW TERRACE lands on Eglinton in Etobicoke, for example.
My assumption is that OMB/OLT appeal isn't in play -- if it were Diamond and Lifetime could have already done it based on how long this file has been open.
daniel_kryz
Active Member
It isn't in-force for the Central Waterfront Secondary Plan area, meaning this development, because of the minister's modifications.
I would just like to remind everyone that Doug Ford's government ripped up the Downtown Plan, which imo had great policies, and made much of its ambitions a joke. In other words, vote NDP if you want planning to actually work.
Minister's modifications: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2019/cc/bgrd/backgroundfile-135952.pdf
I also want to agree with @Northern Light on the flexibility of City Planning. Because of the OLT, they have to be consistent in their interpretations of policies, and the policies themselves have to be strict. I only wish that we were like Vancouver, where the planner has guidelines, policies, and bulletins that give them room for flexibility based on each proposal and very rarely actual by-laws that must be applied in all circumstances. But we don't. The province has created a very complex system that doesn't produce much value and makes planning into a fight between planners & developers, one that developers almost always win, when it doesn't have to be that way.
Last edited:
C-mac
Senior Member
Well it seems like the council is oblivious to the housing crisis then, because things are getting dangerous. I hope the province steps in and grabs the bull by the horns.
rbt
Senior Member
The MZO for Eglinton Centre which allows developers to side-step many municipal guidelines, was not well received by anybody; even some developers made concerned noises about what their neighbour developers might put up next to their property.
In short, the province stepping in without some thought about long-term impact may not result in a high standard of living.
Reducing SFH zoning, particularly where infrastructure is overbuilt (transit stations, etc.) is beneficial. Reducing natural-light and minimum size requirements as the MZO did isn't helpful; any step toward Hong Kong style cage apartments is a step too far.
I even question whether Harrington House "Flex-Plus" style housing (561 Sherbourne), where they take a normal 1-bed and split it into several 95sqft units with shared bathroom/kitchen, should be encouraged for long-term accommodation. Rooming houses are useful for a few months, but should include access to some form of assistance program.
Last edited: