A huge proposed development on a small residential street will be considered at Etobicoke York Community Council next week.
Developers are proposing a 35-storey tower with 374 units and parking for 154 cars. The proposal violates planning guidelines and some city bylaws about height, density, size, setbacks, waste handling, and parking (the developers kindly provided council with a draft bylaw amendment).
By my calculation, this will be the tallest building in Mount Dennis.
I think it’s in a terrible location at the end of a narrow street, and will provide little to the community. The Etobicoke York Community Council will meet July 14 to discuss the building.
Remember Plant World, that sprawling 2-hectare garden centre on Eglinton with rather high prices but some spectacular and unusual horticultural specimens? It was operated in various guises by the Delworth-Reeves family from 1889† when, “Cornelius Delworth purchased a parcel of land on Richview Side Road (now Eglinton Avenue) in the outlying farming community of Weston, as an expansion of his downtown nursery operation.”.
Many green-fingered folk were dealt a crushing blow when the last customers were ushered out last September having been sold several years earlier. Yes, you could say their lives were uprooted.
The large site was a tempting one for developers and the owners were probably made an offer too good to resist. In December 2015, purchasers Lanterra Developments submitted a site proposal for 5 condo towers on the site ranging in height from 18 – 33 stories with 1900 apartments and townhomes. The project was grandly named ‘Notting Hill Condominiums’ but don’t expect to see Hugh Grant or Julia Roberts anytime soon.
Lanterra’s 2015 proposal went over like the proverbial lead balloon with the Planning Department and people attending the community consultation in May 2016. Issues such as, density, school capacity, shadow and traffic concerns and compatibility with the neighbourhood (despite already being dotted with 16-20 storey apartment towers) were some of the objections raised. The developer was told by Etobicoke York Community Council to tone it down, sharpen their erasers and try again.
Later in 2016, Lanterra invoked the Ontario Municipal Board’s appeals process †(an appointed body that prior to having its wings clipped by Premier Wynne was accused of rubber-stamping developers’ excesses). The developer wanted an OMB intervention claiming that Council was dragging its feet.
Instead of bringing judgement from on high and picking a winner, the newly relevant†OMB mediated an agreement†released in 2018 between all parties and the result was lower overall podium and tower heights, no townhomes, revised setbacks, lower density and a reduction to 1360 apartments. In addition, 25% of the apartments were mandated to be 2 or 3 bedrooms; the developer was to pay $3.8 million in (Section 37) community benefits including up to $800,000 in public art (oh dear lord).
According to Urban Toronto, the latest plan submitted in June has the number of dwellings at 1275 but Lanterra’s website says 1320. The OMB has reserved the right to step in again if needed but so far everyone seems happy. Ontario Liberals might call it a Wynne Win.
The mediated agreement was approved by Toronto City Council in 2018.
This distinctive building at Weston and Eglinton is soon to be the home of another retail cannabis outlet under the Hobo Cannabis Company brand. The company seems to be based in Western Canada. The Weston location is one of fifteen Ontario outlets announced today by the company.
I’ve always wondered about the purpose of the glass structure on the front.
If you’re in the market for a condo apartment or just deciding whether a proposed condo will be good for the neighbourhood, here’s a look at the features a good apartment should have in the 2020s.
Weston and Mount Dennis are seeing a flurry of building proposals, most of which involve apartment towers. Weston is in the unenviable position of already having some great examples of what not to build. Hopefully we can learn from these examples and do better.
A one-bedroom apartment should provide a minimum of 500 square feet of year-round living space, a two-bedroom apartment 750 square feet and a three-bedroom above 1200 square feet. A good open-plan layout with ample space and a fully-featured kitchen is the preferred design these days. Bedrooms used to be placed in their own section with a corridor. Nowadays, thanks to space constraints, corridors have gone and bedrooms are often scattered around the living room rather than in one area. Bedrooms should be designed to accommodate student study spaces.
There should be in-apartment storage space for things like a stroller or mobility scooter.
An in-unit washer and dryer is a major convenience.
Balconies can be a great feature of an apartment, allowing access to sunshine, fresh air and perhaps some vegetables in the summer.
Apartments should allow for flexibility so that they can adapt as a family’s needs change.
Generous common / amenity space:
Amenity spaces help create a community inside a building by providing areas where people can meet and interact.
Lobbies that promote interaction
A play area for children
Day care facilities
Fitness centre / Yoga studio / Library / meeting room
Swimming pool / sauna
Ample parking for deliveries
Lockers where delivery people can leave packages for residents.
Large item storage lockers.
Secure / gated access
Pet friendly with accommodation for dog toilet needs to ease the burden on local parks.
Outdoor common space with wifi.
Secure, covered and adequate vehicle / bicycle parking is a big deal.¬†Parking is expensive for developers as the only way to provide it to dig. The more parking the more digging. Developers like to skimp on parking claiming there is less demand for it. ¬†Weston is a long way from being a car-free community. Unlike downtown Toronto, we can’t walk and cycle everywhere for our needs. We don’t even have any decent bike lanes inn Weston. There should be one parking space per apartment otherwise the parking problem just spills out into the neighbourhood. Parking spaces can always be adapted for other uses once transit becomes adequate and the neighbourhood provides a better variety of retail and cultural experiences.¬†Charging stations for e-vehicles should be provided.
Security costs money and having someone monitor residents and visitors is expensive but necessary for peace of mind.
The cost of energy is likely to rise in the future. Keeping costs down is important along with eliminating the use of fossil fuels such as natural gas.
Electrically powered heat pumps are one of the best and most energy-efficient ways to heat and cool an apartment. More costly to install, they keep resident’s fuel expenses low and use less energy.¬†¬†A 4-pipe heat pump system can respond quickly to daily and seasonal changes and will allow heating and cooling simultaneously in the various parts of the building (some buildings can have only air-conditioning or heating at any one time and the switch-over date is a contentious one).
We can build bare-bones and quick profit dwellings that don’t adapt well to future needs or we can build communities where people can thrive.
It’s up to us and city planners to hold developers to account so that history doesn’t repeat itself. Toronto has written a set of draft urban design guidelines that considers the needs of children and families growing up in an apartment community. They are well worth a read.
At the Community Meeting about the proposal for the development at the Greenland Farms site (Weston and Little Ave.), the developer’s agent tried to justify the immense building on the basis of the province’s plans to increase development around ‘Major Transit Stations’.¬† Weston GO station (as long as we keep our GO trains) is such a Major Transit Station.¬† The new provincial plans (now called ‘A Place to Grow’) require a planned density of 150 persons and jobs per hectare (1/100 of a square kilometre) around GO Stations.¬† From the city of Toronto, this definition:
So, what does this mean for Weston?¬† First, the 500 metre radius looks like this.
The Greenland Farms development will clearly be within that circle which extends north to almost King, south to part of Sykes, east along Lawrence to Pine, and west to just into Etobicoke.
But the real question is, how much density do we need to achieve the provincial plan?¬† Do we really need to permit several 29 and 36 storey towers?
The answer can be found in the 2016 Census.¬† Here is a map of the west part of Toronto with densities in different colours – dark blue being the densest.
The Census data is in persons per square kilometre.¬† Weston is already the densest part of the west end, with the possible exception of part of Dixon Road.¬† And the densities of the areas closest to the proposed development are already substantially more than 150 persons per hectare, not counting any jobs which may exist.
By small census areas, here are the actual densities.
35204426 – West side of Weston Road, Little to St. Phillips – Density 153.3 persons per hectare
35204415 – East side of Weston Road, King to John to tracks – Density 181.73 persons per hectare
35204414 – North side of Lawrence to John St, Little to tracks – Density 177.57 persons per hectare
35204413 – South side of Lawrence, Hickory Tree to Weston Rd. – Density 292.12 persons per hectare
35204412 – South side of Lawrence, Weston to Pine and south to Denison – Density 69.19 persons per hectare
35204411 – West side of Weston Rd., Bellevue to Wright – Density 133.72 persons per hectare.
The 2016 census was before the building at 22 John was occupied.¬† So the density is already greater.¬† And the count does not include jobs, which takes the count even higher.
Weston is already plenty dense enough.¬† Developers cannot point to the provincial growth plan and claim a right to make it denser.¬† Even the legally allowed 8 storey maximum for development on Weston Road would significantly increase the density.
The city can and should say no to any more monstrous buildings in Weston. And defend such decision at the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (successor to the OMB) should the developers appeal.¬† Developers who thought we’d be an easy mark can think again.
At the Jan 8 Community Council meeting, councilors accepted the report of the city planning department regarding the proposed 29 storey twin-tower development at Weston and Little Ave.(the Greenland Farms site). The report essentially said the plans were too much for the current zoning and official plan, but planning will work with the developer on amending the plans. Councillor Nunziata amended the motion to add that another community meeting should be held prior to any new reports about this development being given to the Community Council, with notices to land owners and residents within 240 metres of the development, at the expense of the developer.
Two Hundred and Forty Metres is not very far. It gets south to Lawrence, east to the train tracks, west to the park, and north to King St. No notices to old Weston, nor to the apartment dwellers at the twin towers, nor 5 Bellevue, nor 29 South Station. The councilor did reserve the right to expand the notice boundary.
After a public consultation, Toronto’s Planning Department has issued a preliminary report covering some of the issues regarding a mammoth development proposed for ‘downtown’ Weston. The site covers 1956, 1966, 1970, 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1982, 1984 and 1986 Weston Road and 1 Little Avenue. It¬†covers several lots along the south side of Weston Road stretching from Little Avenue to the old Greenland Farms parking lot with a back access from Lawrence.
The report basically says that the proposal is deeply flawed.
There are only two recommendations from the report – one covers mailing costs for notifying members of the public and the other states, “Staff continue to work with the applicant to address the issues identified in this report and any additional issues that may be identified through the continuing review of the application, agency comments and the community consultation process.”
OK then, let’s get into the issues that have to be discussed (in no particular order).
Project Size and scale:
From the report,
“The proposed scale of development would result in a bulky, overwhelming presence which would not fit in with the surrounding area nor provide adequate transition in height to the surrounding properties, including: the existing 1 to 2-storey mixed use buildings fronting Weston Road, the existing taller buildings along Weston Road to the east, the 2-storey building directly adjacent to the south, and the rest of the Weston Phase 1 HCD and Neighbourhoods designated lands to the south and west. In its current form, the proposal fails to address the local and planned context in which it is situated.”It doesn’t get plainer than this. Staff are suggesting that the project be revised to a mid-rise building
Conformity to the Official Plan:
The location is a mixed use area and also an ‘avenue’. These are subject to lower density requirements but each case is different. Weston’s avenue hasn’t been studied yet but tall buildings are generally more appropriate downtown than along an avenue. A tall building is defined as being higher than the width of the street which is 27 m (equivalent to 8 storeys) at this location.
Breaching the Weston Plan:
Yes Virginia, there are guidelines¬†for Weston.¬†To read them is to wonder what happened to the dreams for the area and how they have been so downgraded and ignored for years. This should be one of the most important jobs for Councillor Nunziata – outlining the Weston guidelines to developers before they submit outrageous proposals like this. In fairness, because of interest in the project Ms Nunziata has asked the developer to expand the notification area – 5660 notices were mailed out for the last meeting.
Anyway, the Weston guidelines state that building heights along Weston Road should not exceed 8 storeys with podiums of no more than 3 stories – all nicely stepped.
Apart from the outrageous height of the proposed buildings the report was critical of cantilevering of the towers (overhang) which goes against a step-like terracing of building levels.
The report suggests that some stores on the site may be pre-confederation which may complicate matters. They also state that¬†heritage buildings should be retained – not just their frontages. There may also be at least six residences already existing on the site.
Section 37 Section 37 is a controversial part of the Ontario Planning Act that allows developers to pay money to the City in exchange for turning a blind eye to poor design or crappy architecture. To quote from the city’s rules, “Good architecture and good design are expected of all developments, as a matter of course, and are not eligible (for) Section 37 benefits.” There is no set amount or formula – (it must be negotiated between ¬†the developer, the City and the local councillor). ¬†The money must pay for a community benefit. It can’t be used to upgrade sewers (for example) – this would have to be done through development charges. Read the Section 37 guidelines here.
Here’s what the city suggests be done with the Section 37 monies generated from this development:
Funding contributions towards Falstaff Community Centre, and/or the new large multi-purpose Central Etobicoke Community Recreation Centre as identified by the Parks and Recreation Facilities Master Plan and Implementation Strategy 2019-2038;
Funding contributions towards the revitalization of the Weston Library Branch and/or Richview Library Branch;
Funding contributions for new child care facilities and/or capital improvements to existing child care facilities; and/or
Secure a minimum of 465 m2 of flexible multi-purpose community agency space in an accessible and visible location at the ground floor of the proposed development in accordance with the City’s Community Space Tenancy policy.
Comment: Neither the Falstaff Community Centre between Jane and Keele nor the (unbuilt) Central Etobicoke Community Recreeation Centre are in Weston and have very little connection to our community. It would certainly suit Councillor Nunziata to spend the money at Falstaff as she is keen to endear herself to her new constituents with a bit of largesse. ¬†Falstaff and anywhere outside the immediate Weston neighbourhood should be taken off the Section 37 table.
If Section 37 money is used to acquire community space in the new building, some clarity would be needed on the length of the lease and which costs would be covered?
It would be preferred if the project generates zero Section 37 money.
Shadows generated by the project:
The report asks that further studies be done because of the massive shadows that this project will generate with potential for shading Little Avenue Park and the project’s outdoor recreation area. Shadow studies during the winter months will be prepared and studied.
These have shown that uncomfortable conditions would be created, particularly on their own recreation space – which is too high up for the planners’ liking. Adjacent buildings on Lawrence would be negatively affected too.
Although the building is to be a condo; planning staff would like to see some affordable rental apartments in there too.
The proposed amenity space is undersized and should be increased.
Weston Road will need to be widened to provide the required 27m right of way.
On-site dog amenities with proper disposal facilities such as dog relief stations would be needed to alleviate the extra pressure on neighbourhood parks.
The applicant would also be required to satisfy the parkland dedication requirement through cash-in-lieu. This is because the developer has proposed to occupy all the space with building or paving.
Not mentioned in the report is the fact that the current right of way linking Weston Road to Lawrence Avenue via the Greenland Farms parking lot will be closed off by the development. This has been enjoyed for years.
Without the recent strong negative response from the community, this project may have proceeded with minimal changes.
Let’s hope the developer responds with something reasonable.