Doesn't the City have the power to block any development it chooses though? Sometimes the good of the city needs to trump the interests of private enterprise. Lanterra could be forced to sit on the sidelines forever if the City forced its hand.

In that case, Lanterra would take the City to court and win, costing the city even more money.
 
Wow! I'm floored by some of the comments made in this thread. Using expropriation powers to demolish the block of buildings along Yonge so the park can be extended? Really folks??

The community strongly desires a park on these lands. The provinced owned the lands which was surplus to their needs so the conducted a disposition process.

The city wanted to noncompetitively purchase these lands, far below market value, so it can built the park. That request was snubbed by the province. (In addition to S37 payments and development charges, the city also collected a fee in lieu of parkland. So the city has an account for parkland creating but probably nowhere near enough to acquire the property at the market value.)

Lanterra is the winning bidder and wants to develop a two-tower condo project. KWT, to her credit, is working with the developer so the footprint of the condo tower can be minimized to just one slender tower while the rest of the land becomes a public park.

I'm really excited about this development as it balances the needs and wants of the community with the rights of the developer.

And no the city does not have the right to refuse any development it does not like. Last I checked Canada has a rule of law. At a minimum the developer can build up to zoning and possibly more from OMB/court system since the zoning is outdated and not in conformance with Toronto's Offical Plan and Places to Grow Act.
 
Wow! I'm floored by some of the comments made in this thread. Using expropriation powers to demolish the block of buildings along Yonge so the park can be extended? Really folks??

The community strongly desires a park on these lands. The provinced owned the lands which was surplus to their needs so the conducted a disposition process.

The city wanted to noncompetitively purchase these lands, far below market value, so it can built the park. That request was snubbed by the province. (In addition to S37 payments and development charges, the city also collected a fee in lieu of parkland. So the city has an account for parkland creating but probably nowhere near enough to acquire the property at the market value.)

Lanterra is the winning bidder and wants to develop a two-tower condo project. KWT, to her credit, is working with the developer so the footprint of the condo tower can be minimized to just one slender tower while the rest of the land becomes a public park.

I'm really excited about this development as it balances the needs and wants of the community with the rights of the developer.

And no the city does not have the right to refuse any development it does not like. Last I checked Canada has a rule of law. At a minimum the developer can build up to zoning and possibly more from OMB/court system since the zoning is outdated and not in conformance with Toronto's Offical Plan and Places to Grow Act.

+1
 
Maybe the city could purchase one of the least worthy properties and Yonge, demolish it, and make it an entrance to this new park from Yonge St?
 
I was under the impression that the land had been set aside for a park. Building a tower on part of it doesn't square with that.

Regarding the buildings on Yonge, my views on this has little to do with my like or dislike of those buildings on Yonge. It has to do with the needs of a modern Toronto over the next 40-50 years. The core is going to get much much denser and this is one of the last opportunities to build green/public space of any size fronting on Yonge.

Sometimes its wise to recognize the bigger picture. Those 3 floor Vics with retail at grade served the city well for a century, but one needs to make sacrifices once in a while for the greater good of the city. Far too often Toronto arrives at these compromise solutions when a clean slate is needed.

These piece meal measure don't serve anyone particularly well.

There are no piecemeal measures here, you are talking about numerous different properties that are presumably owned by several different landowners with a laneway running down the middle. If you want to look at the "bigger picture" of a Toronto future consider that most of what exists on the west side of Yonge between Wellesley & Breadalbane Sts. is worthy of saving and that it will continue to serve shoppers, tourists and the community at a human scale which is much better than the base of a huge condo development (see Aura or upper Bay Street for evidence of this). I'm not so big on the idea of green spaces on downtown Yonge, it's a recipe for trouble IMO. What we could hope for is that the owners of these buildings (four of them in particular) restore and/or clean their frontages (brick, moldings) to make them more attractive, a problem with many of these types of buildings on Yonge, Queen E. & W., College W., Gerrard St. etc.
I'm disappointed that the parkland was lost but it's time to move on. I'm confident that Lanterra will propose a good looking project here (given their recent track record) and work with the community and the Councillor to create a much needed, attractive public greenspace on their land.

Maybe the city could purchase one of the least worthy properties and Yonge, demolish it, and make it an entrance to this new park from Yonge St?

There's still the matter of crossing St. Luke laneway between the Yonge Street buildings and the property referred to as 11 Wellesley W. so there can be no continuous flow of green space. When it's all complete the park component will be easily accessed from Yonge or Bay via Wellesley or Breadalbane Sts.
 
If they've already submitted an application for a two-tower concept, I'd doubt the sincerity of Lanterra's claims re: exploring a single tower solution.

There are a lot of moving parts in the background regarding the single tower solution.
 
There are a lot of moving parts in the background regarding the single tower solution.

^ Agreed - having submitted for a two tower design is a very powerful bargaining chip. Imagine what they can achieve now to give this up and go to a single tower. I think it's brilliant.
 
It's likely just a preliminary massing study with arbitrary height (ie. look at how the tower appears to plopped onto the parkland without any transition or dialogue). Considering that they're exploring a one-tower concept, I'd estimate Lanterra proposing 60-80 storeys. I'd still like to see a streetwall framing along Wellesley though.


Well they proposed 45 floors plus 54 floors - that's 99 floors. Why would they cut it back to 80 floors just to give the city a park?

I would go for 100 floors and give them the park and let the city try to reduce it to 95.
 
Well they proposed 45 floors plus 54 floors - that's 99 floors. Why would they cut it back to 80 floors just to give the city a park?

I would go for 100 floors and give them the park and let the city try to reduce it to 95.

From a construction point of view, it doesn't work that way. More expensive concrete and building materials must be used at certain height points. I don't recall exactly what these points are, but the first one is at 5 stories. Building a building above 5 stories resulted results in a significant jump in the cost per sqft of construction for the entire building. I want to say the next price points are in the ballpark of 25 stories, 60 stories and 80 stories. A some point, it's not economical to build any taller.

Again, this is not my strong point, but if someone is knowledgeable about this subject, please correct me. It's an interesting subject area.
 
Well they proposed 45 floors plus 54 floors - that's 99 floors. Why would they cut it back to 80 floors just to give the city a park?

I would go for 100 floors and give them the park and let the city try to reduce it to 95.

Exploring a one-tower concept does not literally mean combining the floor counts. I have a hard time believing 100 storeys is realistically what they're going for. Neither is Wellesley a street that could handle such congestion.
 
If anything, the developer should've been encouraged to buy the low rise houses on Yonge, place the tower right against the Yonge/Wellesley intersection with nice streetwall, thus allowing for at least half of the Yonge frontage to become parkland along with the rest of the lot. This park should also be a "shadowphobe" free zone to allow the nearby blocks (especially along Yonge) to develop. I'd like to see at least one park in Toronto, outside of Yorkville, that is surrounded by highrises.
 
Are we not learning how condos can destroy good, walkable streets in downtown? What we have here with 11 Wellesley is a great arrangement under the circumstances given that the city couldn't pick up the property. We get intensification and some green space. Win-win. If your thinking of something approaching that of a central park type configuration we'll never see that downtown, elsewhere - perhaps, but not in our lifetimes.
 

Back
Top