How dare people think we should have more housing in a housing crisis?

just because we don’t agree doesn’t mean we are PR for developers lol

While the comment to which you were responding was needlessly over the top; it is entirely fair to say that The Millwood is not going to address the need for affordable rental housing; nor, for that matter will it make ownership housing materially more affordable either.

Equally, The Millwood is a less than stellar proposal in its current form.

That's not necessarily an argument against its overall height; but it certainly is, against its massing.

Said massing being exceeding bulky, overbearing and indifferent to context.
 
WHAT HOUSING CRISIS?

the vacancy rate is at 50 years high n you can finally rent a decent 2 split beds in dt with 2500 or less... the one needs housing the most aka hobos are not gonna able to afford boogie condos that goes for 1250+/sf, so yeah we dont need more high end high-rise that only "investors" can afford, WHERE IS THE LOW INCOME RENTAL UNIT?? there is none n most of the time luxury condo units REPLACE rent contol apartment but everyone is too busy admiring the latest addition to the "100m list" than addressing the ACTUAL housing crisis which is the evergrowing homeless pop.

While I'm sympathetic to an argument that The Millwood is less than ideal in its current form............

This sort of answer, is not going to get your argument much of a hearing with others.

All--caps is a no-no..........that's internet-speak for yelling, and no-one likes being yelled at.

While it's reasonable to suggest, as I have above, that "The Millwood" is not a source of low-income or even affordable housing......
It is not reasonable to say there is no housing crisis off the top; then proceed to describe one only a few sentences later.

Take a breath. If you have a cogent argument to make (and I think you might)...... express it without exaggeration, and without needlessly inflaming others, please.
 
WHATS WRONG WITH PPL IN THIS FORUM?!
Extremely sus that most commenters here are PR...
the builder originally came in with 25 and 34 stories when there was an uproar about simply inconsistent height with the surrounding development let alone the shadow it is going to cast on vegetations that going to die THEN Times double down to 30- and 45-stories??

the people here are clapping be like "yeeee finally some HEIGHT"...."Anti-Development Crowd blah blah blah" it's sad to look at.....
What's wrong with it?
 
Story on one of the local Blog pages.... had a photo of what local RA claims are "significant heritage structure(s)"...


I will repeat what I said earlier in the thread.

The heritage argument is bogus here.

But there are real problems w/this building in its current iteration; and heritage status is one of few tools at the City's disposal to bring the proponent to the negotiating table.

That's absurd all around.

*****

The issues here are about massing, setbacks, streetwall and shadowing. (and the landscape plan!)

I don't live anywhere near here, and have no vested interest, and I'm fine w/the overall height, subject to the above.

Of course, there are NIMBYs who aren't; but that's a different story.
 
I’ve moved to the area and have been thinking about this buiding. Why on earth does this have over 400 parking spots? This is a transit-rich, walkable neighbourhood, which is due to get even better in a year or two. Is this really how we build stuff in Toronto?
 
I’ve moved to the area and have been thinking about this buiding. Why on earth does this have over 400 parking spots? This is a transit-rich, walkable neighbourhood, which is due to get even better in a year or two. Is this really how we build stuff in Toronto?
Yes, THIS is really how we build things in Toronto ... sadly....

Good news is that we're encouraging the City to CUT all those Parking-Defaults, and we hopefully won't be making the same mistakes later into 2022-ish. Stay tuned....

 
I’ve moved to the area and have been thinking about this buiding. Why on earth does this have over 400 parking spots? This is a transit-rich, walkable neighbourhood, which is due to get even better in a year or two. Is this really how we build stuff in Toronto?
These are the real questions that should be asked about this development.

On another note, I lol'd at iamaimai's first and only two posts
 


1909 and 1913 Yonge Street - Notice of Intention to Designate Properties under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act

This item will be considered by Toronto Preservation Board on January 24, 2022.

Summary
This report recommends that City Council state its intention to designate the properties at 1909 Yonge Street (including entrance addresses at 2 and 2A Davisville Avenue) and 1913 Yonge Street under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act.

Constructed circa 1890 and acquired by J. J. Davis in 1896, the J. J. Davis General Store at 1909 Yonge Street is a local landmark that anchors the northeast corner of Yonge Street and Davisville Avenue, and includes frontages on both Yonge Street and Davisville Avenue. As a late-Victorian vernacular mixed-use building, the property represents the early wave of development that took place in Davisville in the late-19th century. The property served as the Davisville post office and general store in the late-19th and early-20th centuries, and is valued for its important early role in the community and its associations with J. J. Davis and the Davis family, who were prominent early residents of Davisville. The property retains its original scale, form, and massing as a 2-storey brick building with a cross-gabled roof.

Dating to circa 1927, the property at 1913 Yonge Street is a representative example of a main street commercial row building from the interwar period. It retains its original scale, form, and massing as a two-storey brick building with a flat roof, along with original architectural details above its storefront.

The property at 1909 Yonge Street was listed on the City of Toronto's Inventory of Heritage Properties (now known as the Heritage Register) on November 21 and 23, 1973, while the property at 1913 Yonge Street was listed on the Heritage Register on October 2, 2017 as part of the Midtown in Focus - Phase 1 "batch listing".

Following city staff's additional research and evaluation under Ontario Regulation 9/06, the provincial criteria prescribed for municipal designation, it has been determined that the properties at 1909 Yonge Street and 1913 Yonge Street meet Ontario Regulation 9/06, the criteria prescribed for municipal designation under Part IV, Section 29 of the

Ontario Heritage Act for the following reasons: 1909 Yonge Street for its design/physical, associative and contextual values, and 1913 Yonge Street for its design/physical, and contextual values.

On September 8, 2020, a Zoning By-law Amendment application was submitted to permit two residential towers at 30 and 45-storeys on a shared 8-storey base building with ground floor retail at 1913-1951 Yonge Street, 17-21 Millwood Road and 22 Davisville Avenue. This proposal includes the listed main street heritage properties at 1913, 1917, 1919, 1919A, 1921 and 1923 Yonge Street, all of which were proposed to be demolished as part of the original development scheme.

Adjacent to the development proposal is the listed landmark J. J. Davis General Store at 1909 Yonge Street, which anchors the northeast corner of Yonge Street and Davisville Avenue.

In June 2019, the More Homes, More Choice Act, 2019 (Bill 108) received Royal Assent. Schedule 11 of this Act included amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act (OHA). The Bill 108 Amendments to the OHA came into force on July 1, 2021, which included a shift in Part IV designations related to certain Planning Act applications. Section 29(1.2) of the OHA now restricts City Council's ability to give notice of its intention to designate a property under the OHA to within 90 days after the City Clerk gives notice of a complete application.

The application currently under review was deemed complete prior to the new legislation coming into force.

A Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) is required for all development applications that affect listed and designated properties and will be considered when determining how a heritage property is to be conserved. Designation also enables City Council to review proposed alterations or demolitions to the property and enforce heritage property standards and maintenance.​
 
Request for Direction on this one is headed to next week's Council meeting.

In one of the more interesting settlement offers I've seen, the developer has openly offered the City two completely distinct options (Settlement Offer 1 and Settlement Offer 2, either of which it may choose to support at the OLT)

If neither offer is accepted, the hearing is scheduled to begin March 28/22

The background report is here:


From said report:

1643558950072.png

1643558999043.png


***

1643559044590.png

1643559068934.png
 
...thanks for this, we will be asking Councillor Matlow and Council to dedicate most or all of the $10-MILLION to new Affordable-Rental Housing development within his Ward. Perhaps even 1-floor of units within this building dedicated to a Co-op...

1643568036446.png
 
Some commentary from me on the changes:

1) Glad to see relief from the 8-storey streetwall on Yonge which I thought was just too much.

On the other hand, I'm not sure this isn't too far the other way, to me you would want to intelligently relate the streetwall to the context; the revised streetwall seems to step back
above either the 2nd or 3rd floor. I think a step back after 4 would have made more visual sense.

2) The preservation of the 'heritage' at the corner is interesting in as much as they seem to be preserving it whole, in-situ, which is certainly not the norm in these parts.
I confess to finding the retention value somewhat low here, as a matter of personal preference, and I wish we could see this level of diligence for more worth buildings.

3) The grocery store is an interesting idea; though with Farm Boy just up the street, and a rebuilt Sobeys set to in just to the south I'd be interested to see who bites. I don't know, even with all the tenants
if this area's demos support the inclusion of a discounter. That would be an obvious choice and I could a Freshco here for that reason, given that Sobeys will be supplying the two other stores nearby.
I do know Longos has kicked around adding a mid-town store, so that seems plausible too.

I can say, sales volumes at Yonge/Eg area stores do indicate room for another full-sized market nearby, even before more units come on stream.
 

Back
Top