Aw, I probably won't last in this neighbouhood much longer but I liked Azores Car Sales.
 
I just received an email from Councillor Mike Layton's assistant:

Planning application meeting for: 871-899 College Street

Date: Monday, January 22, 2018
Time: 7:00pm – 9:00pm
Place: 319 Ossington Avenue – Pope Francis Catholic School

Proposal
This application proposes an 8-storey mixed-use building with 131 residential units, 57 vehicle parking spaces
and 180 bicycle parking spaces at 871-899 College Street. The ground floor will contain 1,746 square metres of
non-residential space fronting on College Street, an entrance and a lobby to the residential units above, and
access to the loading and the underground parking off the rear lane. The proposed tenure of the residential units
would be comprised of 23 condominium suites, and 108 rental apartment units. The unit mix for the rental
apartment units would consist of 77 one-bedroom units, 17 two-bedroom units, and 14 three-bedroom units.

The rental mix for the condominium suites would consist of 18 one-
bedroom, 2 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom units.
 
I hope that this developer will reconsider and build more two-bedroom units in this building, both condo and rental. There are many families with children who would love to live in this neighbourhood. Schools like Clinton and Montrose are at well-below capacity, and if they can't build more family-appropriate housing in this area, then one of those schools will close. Houses are unaffordable in this area, well over $1M. This area has been one of the worst for building new housing. Streets like Bathurst, College, and Bloor in this area need more mid-rise missing middle stuff, and that would also save the schools and bring younger family demographic into the area.
 
ponyboy said:
I hope that this developer will reconsider and build more two-bedroom units in this building, both condo and rental. There are many families with children who would love to live in this neighbourhood. Schools like Clinton and Montrose are at well-below capacity, and if they can't build more family-appropriate housing in this area, then one of those schools will close. Houses are unaffordable in this area, well over $1M. This area has been one of the worst for building new housing. Streets like Bathurst, College, and Bloor in this area need more mid-rise missing middle stuff, and that would also save the schools and bring younger family demographic into the area.
Click to expand...

So well said. I'll be going to the public meeting for this one to head off the NIMBYs.
 
ponyboy said:
I hope that this developer will reconsider and build more two-bedroom units in this building, both condo and rental. There are many families with children who would love to live in this neighbourhood. Schools like Clinton and Montrose are at well-below capacity, and if they can't build more family-appropriate housing in this area, then one of those schools will close. Houses are unaffordable in this area, well over $1M. This area has been one of the worst for building new housing. Streets like Bathurst, College, and Bloor in this area need more mid-rise missing middle stuff, and that would also save the schools and bring younger family demographic into the area.
Click to expand...
yes they will including offering the city to have some of retail dedicated to childcare facilities
 
that's good to hear. I don't know if the neighbourhood is short of daycare facilities, but it is certainly short of family-sized rental and condos. Designated affordable units are good, but we also need places available to regular "middle-class" families making $50-120K who can't afford single family homes in the area. We need higher quantity of those especially in my opinion.
 
AlbertC said:
I just received an email from Councillor Mike Layton's assistant:

Planning application meeting for: 871-899 College Street

Date: Monday, January 22, 2018
Time: 7:00pm – 9:00pm
Place: 319 Ossington Avenue – Pope Francis Catholic School

Proposal
This application proposes an 8-storey mixed-use building with 131 residential units, 57 vehicle parking spaces
and 180 bicycle parking spaces at 871-899 College Street. The ground floor will contain 1,746 square metres of
non-residential space fronting on College Street, an entrance and a lobby to the residential units above, and
access to the loading and the underground parking off the rear lane. The proposed tenure of the residential units
would be comprised of 23 condominium suites, and 108 rental apartment units. The unit mix for the rental
apartment units would consist of 77 one-bedroom units, 17 two-bedroom units, and 14 three-bedroom units.

The rental mix for the condominium suites would consist of 18 one-
bedroom, 2 two-bedroom and 3 three-bedroom units.
Click to expand...

Reminder that this meeting is tonight; join me in showing up to counter the NIMBY set.
 
So last night's consultation was a total NIMBY-fest; I've only heard worse from Annex-area residents.

Also, the design got neutered at the behest of the City:

image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    129.9 KB · Views: 794
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    186.2 KB · Views: 902
  • image.jpeg
    image.jpeg
    257.3 KB · Views: 878
Rupert Pumpkin said:
What did the City say about the design? Any concern with the height?
Click to expand...

It was the City's request to remove the 383 Sorauren-esque brick frontage that is now the curtainwall with fins (which I bemoaned to the planner).

I'd say the NIMBYs were most concerned with the height, followed by density, followed by parking (on both sides of the equation) and servicing, to go along with the usual moaning about how much profit the developer stands to make and other related bullshit.

The proponent's planner pointed to 8 other recently(ish) completed developments on College that were all built to 25m, which is what's being sought here, which actually backfired and launched the NIMBYs into a tirade against the City vis-a-vis that emanated from a lack of understanding of the difference between "guidelines" and "limits" and of the manner in which the various planning guideline regimes are applied (i.e. mid-rise guidelines vs. OP vs. Growth Plan, etc.).

Councillor Layton, to his credit, was very adept at calming the crowd and interjecting with some carefully nuanced rationality in certain places (and the developer, Wes Miles, did a great job as well), and noted very clearly to the crowd that the developer is essentially guaranteed to get 16m.

I spoke with the planner privately afterwards (the crowd was vicious enough that the City wasn't going to publicly disagree forcefully with the pitchfork-carriers), and he said he wasn't sure where they'd end up on exact height, but expected they'd land at about 7 storeys.
 
Interesting....it's too bad they pushed for the removal of the brick frontage. I think it sits nicely with the neighbouring facade.
Sounds like a typical Planner approach by comparing recently approved/completed developments, but it's a fair stance. Will their be another consultation?
 
ADRM said:
It was the City's request to remove the 383 Sorauren-esque brick frontage that is now the curtainwall with fins (which I bemoaned to the planner).
Click to expand...

A question about this for someone more informed. It comes up in thread after thread that the city can't impose on aesthetic matters, e.g. they can't tell a developer not to use grey spandrel. But then how on earth can they make a call like this? Utterly baffling.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top