Some answers to community questions about Greenland Farms development

The developers of the Greenland Farms site held a  consultation this week at Weston CI, and their representatives answered some of the community’s questions.

The developer’s concept drawing of the finished product. Note the size of the storefronts at the base of the structure. Click to enlarge.

The development was repeatedly framed as “regentrification” and an opportunity to have more owners move to the neighbourhood. Adam Brown, the solicitor for the applicant, also suggested that the prices would be in $500–$800 per square foot range, much less than downtown.

I got little sense, however, that the developers had any interest in community development, except insofar as it was required by law. Brown said the building would conform to the city’s green standards  because it has to, and that the developers would contribute to development funding, because it is the law. It was, to my mind, a contrast to the 22 John development, which promised public benefits above those required by the city.

The audience applauded when Mike Sullivan, our former MP and a contributor to WestonWeb, asked why the site was so ugly. The audience was generally skeptical and critical of the projects size (two towers), height (29 storeys), and proximity to the property lines.

The developers’ representatives did answer questions posed by the audience, some of which Roy asked in an earlier post.

Why is this development not in keeping with the scale of the area.

Brown said that development required a “critical mass”. “You will not see regentrification or redevelopment of the area at 8 storeys”, he said—the height called for by the local planning guidelines. “There is an economic reality to it.”

If this project is approved, where will the considerable Section 37 monies be spent?

Brown said that there hasn’t yet been any discussion of section 37 benefits, because the development is at too early a stage.

  • Why are there so few parking spaces allocated?

“We are not anticipating a high demand for parking…. I know the city would like us to provide more parking on site”, he said. He suggested that most residents would be commuters to downtown and not want cars to get around the suburbs—a questionable assumption, I think.

He acknowledged, too, that if a grocery store were to be a tenant, that “they will ask for more parking”.

Where are the shadow studies for the winter months?

City rules do not require shadow studies for the winter. The city planner said “we have some concerns”.

Author: Adam Norman

I am raising my two children in Weston.

8 thoughts on “Some answers to community questions about Greenland Farms development”

  1. Mike [kapow!]. It seems there is a lot of complaining about all the violence and gun issues in the area and without good change that gentrifies Weston it will continue to go downhill. There were people talking about the old days with a main street and banks that does not happen when no one has money to spend in stores and cant support a Bank. Weston needs to grow with more housing that is pay to play not social housing. Then more places like Black Cat Expresso might come to Weston instead of Money Marts.

      1. Lol…most in the room clapped for mike so clearly you don’t care about the community and are trolling for the developer.

  2. The City would have had a lot more leverage for community benefits in John St. because the deal involved a sale of City land. We wouldn’t have gotten those things without it. I missed the meeting, but am optimistic a little less height and a lot leaner (and stepped back) podium will make for a great development. Also, less parking meaning less traffic impact, which is a bonus.

  3. Funny how half my original post was rewritten and removed by this far left wing media outlet. I was warned not insult people or I would be removed. I doubt I insulted anyone but Mike was out of line at the meeting insulting the Architect that presented a beautiful building. Also removed was my comments on the ugly wood building at the corner of little ave that has to be incorporated into the design of the new building.

    1. Mike, when you use insults to make your point, it indicates that your argument hasn’t much substance to it. The point of the meeting was to gather opinions on the developer’s application. Mike Sullivan (and others) had the courage to express an opinion and backed it up with coherent statements, not insults. He was applauded by many in the audience because his reasons resonated with them.
      You seem to hold some strong opinions (far left wing media outlet, ugly wood building…) but when you fail to back up your statements with reasons, you lose credibility.

      1. Kudos to you for your calm response and clear thinking Roy, and for the time and care that you and Adam put in to present issues and analyses which your readers appreciate and can benefit from.

Comments are closed.