waterloowarrior said:
The previous staff report did not have a draft zoning by-law or Section 37 agreement, probably because it was recommended for refusal. Community Council directed the Chief Planner (i.e. Planning and Legal Staff) to prepare the site-specific By-law and Section 37 agreement and bring it back to them so they can send it to Council with those things attached.

The Section 37 agreement includes work on the heritage building (which isn't designated IIRC), and $1 million cash to go toward projects such as affordable housing projects in Ward 20, local park improvements, and streetscape improvements to Dundas Street West. There are also things like the requirement to go for LEED if viable and knockout panels for 3 bedroom units.
Click to expand...

Work on the heritage building would not count as credit to S. 37. The building will be aiming for LEED certification with or without a S. 37 agreement requiring it to. Knockout panels were also already planned before S. 37.

S. 37 is the last thing that is dealt with in the approval process, hence why it is only being dealt with now. The money will most likely be used to improve area parks, or University Ave. itself.
 
Solaris said:
IMO ... City Planning ~
Click to expand...

Why do you think it represents poor City Planning?

The way I see it, the proposed project is in proximity to multiple public transportation routes, good nearby grocery shopping (Longos and The Kitchen Table), near multiple places of employment and in close proximity to multiple amenities.

If there is demand for a building without permanent parking, it seems to me that it would be an excellent fit.

While I understand there may be other reasons to refuse the condo (as per the Staff Report: "Unfortunately, the omission of parking spaces (with the exception of nine spaces), and the inadequate supply of indoor amenity space, and their potential impacts on the adjacent areas, and indeed, the
precedent for the City, cannot be ignored. It is therefore recommended that Council refuse the application"), I am curious why the lack of parking would be such a planning no-no?

Thanks,

M.
 
regardless of where a project is located (even downtown Toronto adjacent to the subway) ... it has never been heard of to assume a 90% + public transit modal split (because that simply DOES NOT HAPPEN in North America ... maybe in Asia)

Further, the simple fact that there is inadequate supply of amenities space is a big problem, given this is in the downtown core the units are for sure going to be tiny, which translates to future residents depending on the shared amenities but will not be available ... further, a Community Facility and Services (CF&S) report is definitely warranted here to assess what, if any, soft infrastructure is available in this area ~
 
The question of "demand for a building without parking" isn't even relevant. Nobody is buying a building. People buy units, and demand for units with no parking has long been proven and many projects have been sold out with only half-or-so units having the option for a parking spot.

Whether some of my neighbours have parking or not is completely irrelevant to me if I'm willing to buy a unit without a spot, so I don't see what difference it makes whether a building is allowed to have no parking at all, or to have enough spots for 50% or 60% or 70% of the units.

Totally agree with approving this.
 
regardless of where a project is located (even downtown Toronto adjacent to the subway) ... it has never been heard of to assume a 90% + public transit modal split (because that simply DOES NOT HAPPEN in North America ... maybe in Asia)
Click to expand...

I would agree with you if it was a random, average sampling of Torontonians which will be moving into the building, but that's not the case. Every single person moving in will be someone who has chosen to buy a unit without parking. I don't understand what's problematic about that.
 
Solaris said:
regardless of where a project is located (even downtown Toronto adjacent to the subway) ... it has never been heard of to assume a 90% + public transit modal split (because that simply DOES NOT HAPPEN in North America ... maybe in Asia)

Further, the simple fact that there is inadequate supply of amenities space is a big problem, given this is in the downtown core the units are for sure going to be tiny, which translates to future residents depending on the shared amenities but will not be available ... further, a Community Facility and Services (CF&S) report is definitely warranted here to assess what, if any, soft infrastructure is available in this area ~
Click to expand...

With regards to your comment: ""it has never been heard of to assume a 90% + public transit modal split"

If the developer is willing to take the risk regarding the parking question, why would City Planning interfere? It sounds like it is not a "planning" issue, but a developer/building business decision. Lets say the project failed because there is no 90%+PT split, then the developer ends up losing money.

With regards to the amenity space, somewhere else on UrbanToronto I asked people who had 500(ish) SF units if they actually use the building's amenity space, and it did not receive much of a response. Never-the-less, IMO, I AGREE that the lack of amenity space is cause for concern. BUT, that is just my gut-feeling. I am still trying to figure out what percent of small-unit owners actually use the amenity space.
 
Solaris said:
regardless of where a project is located (even downtown Toronto adjacent to the subway) ... it has never been heard of to assume a 90% + public transit modal split (because that simply DOES NOT HAPPEN in North America ... maybe in Asia)

Further, the simple fact that there is inadequate supply of amenities space is a big problem, given this is in the downtown core the units are for sure going to be tiny, which translates to future residents depending on the shared amenities but will not be available ... further, a Community Facility and Services (CF&S) report is definitely warranted here to assess what, if any, soft infrastructure is available in this area ~
Click to expand...

That argument makes no sense. It simply does not happen in North America because it has never been proposed or allowed. This project is a precedent. If sales are successful, it will be safe to assume a 90%+ public transit modal split. The people most likely to buy in this project are people who do not own cars. Its simple, really.

As for amenity space, there will be a gym in the building. That is all. Really though, you are downtown. If you need more than that, you don't know downtown. Downtown is your theatre, your library, your party room, etc. The point is to experience the city and live an urban lifestyle. Not drive to work, drive back to your condo where you spend the rest of the day hiding in your building.
 
Last edited:
The whole concept of this project is ..unusual. (Attempt at being polite)

Minimal or no parking? What the hell. Try it and see what happens.
Who suffers here? From what I can gather it would only be the buyers who have bought into this knowing exactly what they are getting or should I say, NOT getting. I have a hunch it will work and the builder will pull it off, selling these units quickly.
On the other hand, the design of this structure does not work. This is just plain bloody awful. The RCMI facade slapped on the front is just about the stupidist thing I have seen to date. This new 'fad' rarely works ..anywhere. The effect is at best, mediocre and is only achieved when one is standing up close and personal at sidewalk level. Cross the street and look back at it and it will look like the pathetic mask it is, stuck on the front of a modern building.

A.Integrate the whole building with the modern structure set back, or B. demolish the old building, and put it out of it's misery, or C. Walk away and leave this lovely old girl alone.
 
Why would there be a 90+% modal share for transit? The Census Tract this proposed building is in has the following modal split for journeys to work:

Cars: 12%
Transit: 27%
Walking/biking: 60%.
Other: 1%
 
If people need a parking spot, they'll buy a unit in another building that HAS a parking spot. The only way this might be a FAIL is if people who buy into the building later have to sell their unit and realize it's hard to sell without parking. But I really don't foresee any problems in regards to the lack of parking provided here.
 
Why would there be a 90+% modal share for transit? The Census Tract this proposed building is in has the following modal split for journeys to work:

Cars: 12%
Transit: 27%
Walking/biking: 60%.
Other: 1%
Click to expand...

The census tract won't be moving into the building. Only some people, all of whom are fine with no parking, assuming it gets built.

What is it about this simple notion that confuses people?
 
BobBob said:
The census tract won't be moving into the building. Only some people, all of whom are fine with no parking, assuming it gets built.

What is it about this simple notion that confuses people?
Click to expand...

Actually, the marketing phase is based on the tract's demographics. Marketing aims to get those who live, work, or play within the census tract as people outside it will have little to no relation to this building.
 
BobBob said:
The census tract won't be moving into the building. Only some people, all of whom are fine with no parking, assuming it gets built.

What is it about this simple notion that confuses people?
Click to expand...

I am agreeing with you.... pointing out that the neighbourhood only has a 12% share for cars going to work already so I'm sure 0% can be done for a specific building. Shopping and errands can be done by either walking, biking, using transit, or using the car share for larger purchases. Visiting friends/relatives can be done by using the autoshare, renting a car, or using some form of public transportation.

If you decide that you do need to buy a car, you can rent a spot in a nearby garage. But for the people who are attracted to this type of development and lifestyle, they either won't own a car or only will need one occaisionally, and their needs can easily be accommodated through car shares and rental cars.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top