I think the purpose is to serve the Albany Clinic with a lot. I can see why it's needed. But it will be a blight on that section of Broadview which is crying out for some "beautification," decent retail, and smart density. It's on the agenda for Jan. 4 but, given who is on that Government Management Committee, I figure it's a sure thing.
 
The Albany is our go-to place for medical stuff and though it's an important place the thought of building dedicated parking for it anywhere nearby fills me with dismay. I suspect it's already served by a lot of foot traffic and for those of us who drive to it, there's a large lot just to the south-east of it already - it's where we park when we're going there. It's really only steps away from the Broadview station.

The notion of adding more public parking to an area crying out for some smart redevelopment and densification strikes me as the complacent product of antiquated notions of urbanity.
 
This is very sad. Broadview needs some urban love and renewal, not this. A surface parking lot is just going to deaden the streetscape.

I have friends that live near one of the Green P's off the Danforth. It can be noisy. The idiot residents who fought the midrise may learn to regret their actions.

First the new Green P at Playter and Danforth, and now this one. Mary Fragedakis is becoming the Queen of Surface Parking. Along with her inexcusable vote against ranked ballots, and then signing off on Fletcher's asinine defence for opposing ranked ballots, Fragedakis' second term is turning into a huge disappointment.
 
Skeezix said:
Mary Fragedakis is becoming the Queen of Surface Parking.
Click to expand...

It would be far more useful if she and Fletcher exercised some clout (however much/little that may be) to look into the several dozen "disabled" permits belonging to members of the Danforth BIA and some other merchants/businesses on the strip. However, I suspect that both councilors have good reason not to tread there.
 
I suspect abuse of the disabled permits is widespread - I'm pretty sure it ain't just on the Danforth that this kind of malarkey goes on.
 
I've been told that there are certain side streets near hospital row on University Ave., where the on-street parking spots are mainly occupied by high-end vehicles, all with disabled permits. Seems the doctors are all issuing each other disabled permits.
 
f the TPA hopes that by taking a real estate investment position in 838 for future potential development (not a surface lot but an actual building) then it must plan further real estate acquisitions to the north of 838 Broadview. The TPA will need to create a large enough parcel of land to enable a public access parking garage with a ramp from Broadview avenue.
 
Why are some so hung up on access from Broadview when it's been Transportation Services position for years that access to sites must be off of the minor or flanking road except in extreme circumstances?
 
Idiot resident here. Lots of stuff to clear up. It's not being turned into a surface parking lot although it looks like the TPA will buy it. They will be landlords to the businesses there. The proposed development had many different problems with it that were never solved through the consultation process. In some ways the project was doomed from the start, the flanking street; Pretoria, is the only two way access for all residents to the west. The project sat right at the bottle neck for all vehicle access. On top of that Pretoria is the main pedestrian route to the grade school while the project aimed to expand the number of vehicles crossing that sidewalk including a garbage truck. Access from Broadview was impossible because the width of the property, the location of TTC stop and proximity to intersection. The mid-rise guidelines are for 20m height, the project was 25m. It also relied exclusively on vehicle elevators for access to parking garage which are not common. There was no parking available for the ground floor retail, street parking is challenging given the short length/width of Pretoria. The point is there was extensive community consultation, the policies didn't apply very well to the specific location and solutions weren't forthcoming. The TPA will hold it and eventually it will need to be aggregated with the property to the north for redevelopment.
 
Wait, so not only is the TPA buying it for 100% political reasons, they aren't even going to turn it into a parking lot? Why the hell is the TPA buying property just to sit on it?

Guidelines are just that, guidelines. They can stretch a little. 8 floors is very typical for a midrise.

Other concerns seem very typical of any development, and relatively minor. Parking elevators are fine. Site access has to occur somehow.
 
It's in the TPA's mandate to buy property and hold until development. The 12 spaces at the back will become public paid parking. Meanwhile, Keesmat is not in favour of using wrapped mechanical penthouses to stretch the guidelines. Concerns might be relative minor for you however it wasn't for the residents so we engaged and end up with the TPA owning the building. Everyone seems happy so what's the problem?
 
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.GM10.9

"The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's authorization to purchase the property municipally known as 838 Broadview Avenue from the owner, 2285566 Ontario Inc. in order to service the short term parking needs of the surrounding Danforth BIA neighbourhood. The intention is to maintain the commercial building on a fully leased basis and operate the ancillary parking area as a municipal parking facility until such time as it is determined that the site is ready to be redeveloped into a new surface carpark."
 
Ex-Montreal Girl said:
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.GM10.9

"The purpose of this report is to obtain Council's authorization to purchase the property municipally known as 838 Broadview Avenue from the owner, 2285566 Ontario Inc. in order to service the short term parking needs of the surrounding Danforth BIA neighbourhood. The intention is to maintain the commercial building on a fully leased basis and operate the ancillary parking area as a municipal parking facility until such time as it is determined that the site is ready to be redeveloped into a new surface carpark."
Click to expand...

One step forward, three or four steps back. Unbelievable.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top