SkyscraperCity Forum banner

28-storey building wins thumbs up from councillors

3K views 10 replies 8 participants last post by  Mr Man 
#1 ·
28-storey building wins thumbs up from councillors


Jul. 8, 2005

In spite of concerns from local residents, Toronto and East York Community Council approved the construction of a 28-storey residential building near Wellesley subway station.
The condominium application was met with opposition from many in the community, who said the building was out of character with the surrounding neighbourhood.

"This represents a threefold increase over what's permitted," said resident Brigitte Westway. "This is a unique single-family residential low-scale neighbourhood downtown. The impacts will include shadowing, view obstruction and setting a precedent for future redevelopment of other sites in the area."

Fellow resident David Reynolds argued that the tall building would cause major shadowing problems for his nearby home. "In the winter, my backyard gets an hour of sunlight in the morning," he said. "It's a quality of life issue for me, not to mention that this is a massive, massive violation of zoning."

Les Klein of Quadrangle Architects, the company that brought forth the application, said the proposal was the result of an extensive peer review process where outside architects were brought in to evaluate the building plans.

"There have been major changes to the original plan," he said. "There's a four-storey podium so the building is stepped away from the surrounding neighbourhood and it's less than 100 metres from the subway station."

That argument was of little consolation to Tom Demlakian, the president of a much smaller condominium complex on nearby Dundonald Street, who noted that previous applications in the area were held to strict zoning guidelines.

"Our building is eight storeys and it staggers to four storeys toward the surrounding neighbourhood," he said. "We went to great pains to achieve that."

But Ward 27 Councillor Kyle Rae (Toronto Centre-Rosedale) sided with the developer, citing the need to build up population density near the subway system. He said that he had met with many people in the community who were in favour of the application.

"It's a major arterial road running east-west across the city and it's 100 feet from Wellesley subway," he said. "This is exactly where we should be seeing intensification."

He added that staff and the applicant had taken care to ensure that the shadowing impact on the surrounding community was minimal.

"The building is taller, but the floor plan is smaller," he said. "In general, people have been supportive of this plan."

The application was approved, with Ward 22 Councillor Michael Walker (St. Paul's) asking that his objection be noted.

- Justin Skinner
 
See less See more
#3 ·
"This represents a threefold increase over what's permitted," said resident Brigitte Westway."


This statement is incorrect, and shows how little people understand the planning process. And i hate how NIMBYs roll this excuse out every time there is an application for an amendment. The as-of-right numbers that cover vast areas of the city are nothing more than bare minimums to act as a catalyst to have any individual projects that exceed them have to go to the city to be approved on an individual basis. It is not saying "this" is the ideal maximum for the whole area, and anything else is not as good. Otherwise, there would be no amendment process in the first place.








""This is a unique single-family residential low-scale neighbourhood downtown. "


Yea right...downtown Toronto is loaded with old victorian and edwardian single family structures everywhere. Take a walk down any of those streets running east of Yonge...they are a collection of old vic and edwardian houses (almost none of which are single-family any more), walk-ups from 1905-1920's, 1950's and 60's highrises, and lately...new highrise condos.

And you know what...this mix works. The trick that makes a walk down these streets so pleasant and have continuity, despite the vast disparity in building types, is the mature trees and similar setbacks which give everything the same feel, whether they are a 3-storey victorian house or a 28 storey apartment building.

I would never advocate demolishing any historic homes to build any more new highrises, but filling in the spaces that can be with them is the best way to go. If all new construction was to mimick the scale of these historic homes, then this would not be the mixed-use, mixed-income area it is...it would be very exclusive. Also, this is not the suburban area it was 120 years ago...it's downtown and high density.








"The impacts will include shadowing, view obstruction and setting a precedent for future redevelopment of other sites in the area."


Shadowing??? The trees are the biggest shadow generators here...think we should cut them down?

Views??? what views would they be?

And the precident was set a very long time ago...a little late for that.








"not to mention that this is a massive, massive violation of zoning."


There's that mis-informed hyperbole again. LOL






KGB
 
#6 ·
Seriously, these nimbys need to realize that they are living in the heart of the big city. If they can't handle highrise construction (especially along subway routes), then they shouldn't be living in the big city. Move out to Vaughan where there are no shadows and tall structures to block their precious "views".
 
#10 ·
""This is a unique single-family residential low-scale neighbourhood downtown. "


Yea right...downtown Toronto is loaded with old victorian and edwardian single family structures everywhere. Take a walk down any of those streets running east of Yonge...they are a collection of old vic and edwardian houses (almost none of which are single-family any more), walk-ups from 1905-1920's, 1950's and 60's highrises, and lately...new highrise condos.

And you know what...this mix works. The trick that makes a walk down these streets so pleasant and have continuity, despite the vast disparity in building types, is the mature trees and similar setbacks which give everything the same feel, whether they are a 3-storey victorian house or a 28 storey apartment building.

I would never advocate demolishing any historic homes to build any more new highrises, but filling in the spaces that can be with them is the best way to go. If all new construction was to mimick the scale of these historic homes, then this would not be the mixed-use, mixed-income area it is...it would be very exclusive. Also, this is not the suburban area it was 120 years ago...it's downtown and high density.
I agree...when I read that part of the article I was a little "iffy" about it myself. At wellesley especially, I don't compehend why there was all of this NIMBY-ass confusion anyways. I don't get why it was such a problem to begin with
 
#11 ·
"This represents a threefold increase over what's permitted," said resident Brigitte Westway."


This statement is incorrect, and shows how little people understand the planning process. And i hate how NIMBYs roll this excuse out every time there is an application for an amendment. The as-of-right numbers that cover vast areas of the city are nothing more than bare minimums to act as a catalyst to have any individual projects that exceed them have to go to the city to be approved on an individual basis. It is not saying "this" is the ideal maximum for the whole area, and anything else is not as good. Otherwise, there would be no amendment process in the first place.
Well said. Almost eerie in a way as this is very similar to an answer I received from a city planner regarding density numbers when I first became interested in planning a very long time ago.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top