[Kenojuak]

This plot of land has tons of opportunity which is rare in the city core so it would be wise to use this land as multipurpose for living, retail and office space. But they also need to think about traffic this will bring. I remember hearing about the expansion along st. clair under the bridge ? With 3 new condos in that corner I can't imagine the amount of additional traffic that will happen along that stretch. i'm thinking this would need to be figured out before another building is approved or it will just be a gridlock all day long.

A detailed, quantitative traffic study is required as part of all rezoning applications. It is then carefully reviewed by the City and very often the City will require changes to a site's design, or upgrades or changes to local road infrastructure, etc., in order to ensure traffic is managed properly.

Remember that this is a site already served by the St. Clair streetcar, and will soon (hopefully?) be served by a Smart Track station with a quick connection to downtown. New developments are also required to provide bicycle parking typically at 1 space per 1 unit minimum.

All of which is to say, traffic is a key element of a rezoning application and review.

 

[junctionist]

The City is actually quite *inflexible* about employment lands. They see them as few and far between and worth protecting at all costs. A 'once they're gone, they're gone forever' approach.

I think they're being unreasonable about it. No one is willing to build factories in areas like this one that require huge plots of land. If there was that much demand for office space, you could replace so many of those two-storey buildings on streets like St. Clair with midrise office buildings just like they're being replaced with mixed use condo/retail buildings at the moment. Anything can be "employment lands" if you change the zoning.

 

[sebajun]

They are doing a good (and nice looking imo) mixed-use project just west of here: https://urbantoronto.ca/database/projects/carlyle-junction

Seems like that may be a good use of the land here as well - although I feel like something like Galleria would be a huge boon to the area - housing + large park area. But I am definitely biased since I am moving next-door in a few years.

 

[mrxbombastic]

I think they're being unreasonable about it. No one is willing to build factories in areas like this one that require huge plots of land. If there was that much demand for office space, you could replace so many of those two-storey buildings on streets like St. Clair with midrise office buildings just like they're being replaced with mixed use condo/retail buildings at the moment. Anything can be "employment lands" if you change the zoning.

The entire area will be subject to intensification planning because it falls in an Major Transit Station Area (the new GO Station). I would expect to see a lot of work here to coincide with the St Clair Transportation Masterplan buildout. The City will certainly push to retain all employment GFA but expect it to be a mix of light industrial and office. Giving up employment lands for solely residential & retail is near impossible without retaining adequate employment GFA. Look no further than the lengths the City went to with the Mr. Christie's site, where limits on the amount of retail GFA as a percentage of employment GFA were agreed to.

 

[Kenojuak]

I think they're being unreasonable about it. No one is willing to build factories in areas like this one that require huge plots of land. If there was that much demand for office space, you could replace so many of those two-storey buildings on streets like St. Clair with midrise office buildings just like they're being replaced with mixed use condo/retail buildings at the moment. Anything can be "employment lands" if you change the zoning.

Employment lands is about the land use designation in the Official Plan, not zoning. As has been explained it is much harder to change the land use designation than it is to rezone, and with good reason as these are different "levels" of municipal policy.

There is a large factory literally next door to the flea market site we are discussing.

There are a lot of uses that are considered employment lands other than retail and office, such as warehousing, light industrial manufacturing, heavy industrial manufacturing, medical research and production facilities, concrete and aggregate plants, agri-food businesses, cannabis businesses, food and CPG packaging and processing, etc. The City's goal is to protect these uses from being eroded by residential and mixed-use development which in current market conditions can always pay more for land than employment uses. The reasons for this are multiple, including that it is a goal of the City to ensure that people have options to live near their work, and work near their homes, to reduce burdens on roads and transit, and for quality of life reasons. It also contributes to economic diversity in the city. If the whole city is residential and the market crashes, that is going to hurt municipal revenues and economic vitality, whereas if the City has a variety of land uses and economic bases, especially counter-cyclical or non-correlated ones, it is a more stable economic position. And finally is economic development base analysis. If the City continues to protect and promote employment lands, it attracts new businesses and business expansion within the City, which brings tax revenues in addition to the benefits I've mentioned above.

Also as discussed above, an employment land use designation does not mean it has to be employment forever. But what it means is that there are extra steps and criteria that must be met before the City will consider changing the land use. The core of these is the Municipal Comprehensive Review which is a coordinated review of a municipality's compliance with provincial policy requirements, including Employment policies, and to look at land use, demand, growth, policy, etc. all within one comprehensive review (hence the name) rather than just piecemeal, here and there, isolated cases without attention to the whole.

Which is a reminder that the City of Toronto does not just "decide" that it's going to protect employment lands. It in fact is required to do so in accordance with relevant provincial policies.

 

[junctionist]

Employment lands is about the land use designation in the Official Plan, not zoning. As has been explained it is much harder to change the land use designation than it is to rezone, and with good reason as these are different "levels" of municipal policy.

There is a large factory literally next door to the flea market site we are discussing.

There are a lot of uses that are considered employment lands other than retail and office, such as warehousing, light industrial manufacturing, heavy industrial manufacturing, medical research and production facilities, concrete and aggregate plants, agri-food businesses, cannabis businesses, food and CPG packaging and processing, etc. The City's goal is to protect these uses from being eroded by residential and mixed-use development which in current market conditions can always pay more for land than employment uses. The reasons for this are multiple, including that it is a goal of the City to ensure that people have options to live near their work, and work near their homes, to reduce burdens on roads and transit, and for quality of life reasons. It also contributes to economic diversity in the city. If the whole city is residential and the market crashes, that is going to hurt municipal revenues and economic vitality, whereas if the City has a variety of land uses and economic bases, especially counter-cyclical or non-correlated ones, it is a more stable economic position. And finally is economic development base analysis. If the City continues to protect and promote employment lands, it attracts new businesses and business expansion within the City, which brings tax revenues in addition to the benefits I've mentioned above.

Also as discussed above, an employment land use designation does not mean it has to be employment forever. But what it means is that there are extra steps and criteria that must be met before the City will consider changing the land use. The core of these is the Municipal Comprehensive Review which is a coordinated review of a municipality's compliance with provincial policy requirements, including Employment policies, and to look at land use, demand, growth, policy, etc. all within one comprehensive review (hence the name) rather than just piecemeal, here and there, isolated cases without attention to the whole.

Which is a reminder that the City of Toronto does not just "decide" that it's going to protect employment lands. It in fact is required to do so in accordance with relevant provincial policies.

I agree with the need to protect and expand the city's commercial base, but the warehousing and manufacturing users want to be next to major freeways nowadays and not in the middle of dense urban neighbourhoods where trucks struggle to navigate the streets without damaging poles, hydro infrastructure, and street furniture. Industry was once attracted to the area for easy railway access via West Toronto Diamond (Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk/Canadian National), which has lost considerable relevance in the past 75 years.

We're left with these large pieces of land where these past industrial uses aren't commercially viable anymore and the only thing that can take their place aside from mixed-use or residential development is big box retail. So we need to adjust our expectations and allow a mix of uses. The goal should be to get the right mix. 95% condo with a small storefront isn't right if you want to maintain the commercial base here.

In the end, it's the mix of uses in close proximity that let people live near their workplaces and allow for vibrant neighbourhoods. Large-scale single-use planning policies discourage these things.

 

[RTLM]

Has there been any updates on what is happening with the Weston Flea Market property?

 

[interchange42]

Has there been any updates on what is happening with the Weston Flea Market property?

Members love being the first to post something, so as soon as there is news, someone tends to post it. Subscribe to this thread… and sit tight!

42

 

[A Torontonian Now]

Graffiti is proliferating. Not much else happening at this presently abandoned property. Taken yesterday:

 

[vic]

Security Scarecrow by Vic Gedris, on Flickr

The security scarecrow isn't keeping the graffiti away.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

The security scarecrow isn't keeping the graffiti away.

...no wonder. It looks like someone on duty having a deep snooze, lol.

 

[interchange42]

I'm starting to think there's no part of the city that is going to be more transformed by new transit infrastructure than is one. The number of neglected, abandoned, and underused properties in this area is amazing. GO Transit service in this area is going to need to be every 10 minutes for rush hour periods to avoid total chaos up here.

42

 

[Towered]

I'm starting to think there's no part of the city that is going to be more transformed by new transit infrastructure than is one. The number of neglected, abandoned, and underused properties in this area is amazing. GO Transit service in this area is going to need to be every 10 minutes for rush hour periods to avoid total chaos up here.

42

Agreed. I also feel the city's plan to build more road connections through the area doesn't go far enough considering what's coming. They need to future-proof, not just react.

 

[interchange42]

Agreed. I also feel the city's plan to build more road connections through the area doesn't go far enough considering what's coming. They need to future-proof, not just react.

I'm not sure how many more roads than those planned could be added, if any, and how that would help anyway as you'd just be extending new roads to other already congested areas, but yes, there are gaps in the road network here that need to be completed. It's a stronger move to mass transportation that's more important though, so future-proofing to me means protected bike lanes on all new roads, raised crossings at corners to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists, major bike parking garages at transit stations, etc. We need a significant modal shift.

42

 

[Towered]

I'm not sure how many more roads than those planned could be added, if any, and how that would help anyway as you'd just be extending new roads to other already congested areas, but yes, there are gaps in the road network here that need to be completed. It's a stronger move to mass transportation that's more important though, so future-proofing to me means protected bike lanes on all new roads, raised crossings at corners to prioritize pedestrians and cyclists, major bike parking garages at transit stations, etc. We need a significant modal shift.

42

Yes, absolutely agreed, especially on building infrastructure for non-car users.