Atlanta based Church’s Texas Chicken (formerly known as Church’s Chicken) will soon have a franchisee occupying the old Bank of Montreal building (the bank where time stood still™) on Weston at John Street. It will be a stone’s throw from the Popeye’s Chicken just up the street and directly across from P&M Restaurant. Close by are Pizza Pizza and Zeal Burgers to name but a few. Yet another food outlet in a small area seems to be a gamble on the part of the chain but at least it’s one less prominently empty building in Weston.
Church’s will begin renovations after July 1st when they take over the building.
It will be interesting to see what happens to the exterior of the old 1906 building constructed for the Bank of British North America. It was in continuous use as a bank for over a century, gaining the Bank of Montreal name in 1918 when the two banks merged.
Let’s hope the exterior renovation won’t be too garish. Perhaps the Weston Historical Society knows when and why the second storey was removed. The brick building further along John Street looks to be where Peter the Barber’s is today. Could it be the same building?
A survey of John Street residents between Pine and Elm fell 1% short of the required 60% approval rate to get speed humps installed.
Staff only recommend humps if more than half of residents respond, and if more than 60% agree with humps. In this case, 55% of residents responded, but 59% of those said they wanted humps—1% less than is required.
Etobicoke York Community Council will consider the issue on February 5.
Speaking of sidewalks, changes are likely coming to John Street. The Etobicoke York Community Council will consider making the intersection of John and Weston roads narrower.
The city wants to widen the sidewalks, remove a lane on John Street, shorten the turn radius, and add pro-pedestrian signals.
I’m a pretty pro-pedestrian, pro-bike kind of guy, but this seems like a mistake to me. John Street is a disaster. Cars park on both sides of the street, making turning difficult already. Pedestrians cross from the parking lot and alley halfway up, and the auto repair shop is less than fully compliant and quite busy. It’s virtually impossible to drive on John without stopping as it is. Narrowing it—especially without vigilant enforcement of parking and stopping bylaws—is going to make that much worse.
If I had my druthers, I’d ruther the city tackle the left turn from South Station Street onto John. It’s wide, fast, and really needs a stop sign to allow pedestrians safe passage to the pedestrian bridge. I’ve seen many cars turning from South Station Street going too fast onto John, going from a wide, amenable street onto a narrow, crowded one.
I think the city is tackling the wrong end of the problem.
Community members are petitioning to stop the severance of 96 John St. The owners asked the city to allow them to split the property into two, and to build another house with a shared driveway.
The houses would be violating several planning rules; in short, they would be too big for the properties.
In other planning news, Frances Nunziata says that the developers of 8 Oak Street (the Satin Finish property) are asking to change their plans. Now they want a “mid-rise development” instead of 3-storey townhomes.
Artscape has launched a website for Artscape Weston. They promise that
The vision for Artscape Weston Hub will be developed from the ground up in the local community and will respond to the needs and interests of neighbours, community partners and other local stakeholders . Plans for Artscape Weston Hub will be developed in response to this shared vision and the community will continue to have an important role to play in stewarding the project once it has opened.
You can also make (some of) your feelings felt through an online survey. The questions are for only the Artscape project, not the associated residential tower.
Your humble correspondent was most intrigued by the comparison Artscape makes between Weston and Wychwood Barns, a comparison first and most ably raised by Roy. Roy found the contrast to be, well, marked.
Artscape seems to be engaging in a little of what my high-power sales-executive friend calls ‘expectation management’
Is the Artscape Weston Hub meant to be the same as the Barns?
… In the case of the Barns, the opportunity that presented itself was a 60,000 square foot, city-owned, heritage building in search of a use. In the case of the Weston project, the opportunity came in the form of a request for proposals for a city-owned parking lot next to an underutilized grocery store and parking structure.
While I am refreshed by this frank writing, as an aside, I remain puzzled about Artscape building nice spaces in nice places. They ‘transform communities‘, and building more where much exists is an odd way to do that.
Yesterday a water main broke sending water flooding down John Street. Metrolinx is working to install a pedestrian bridge in that area and repairs took about nine hours. Businesses along John Street were affected. Because waterman repair is a function of the City, unfortunately, the notification that residents and businesses would have no water for several hours fell between the cracks.
This should have been where either the City or Metrolinx’s Community Office swung into action to notify long suffering residents and businesses (such as Pizza Pizza who were forced to close).
It’s surprising that nobody saw this coming. Let’s hope further interruptions can be avoided.
Frances Nunziata’s office pamphleted Weston this week with a defence of the proposed 30-storey tower on King. The new proposed tower will be much taller than original proposal, which had only 18 storeys.
Nunziata’s flyer says that “a[n opposing] flyer has been circulated throughout the community to rally support for an 18-story tower which will result in greater shadow impacts and less public space for the community’s use, including the Farmers’ Market.”
Her flyer, by contrast, says that the 30-storey proposal is necessary to meet the Tall Building Guidelines, “which apply across the city” (her emphasis). This taller building will also, she says, reduce the impact of the shadow and allow for more community space.
Tall buildings are desirable in the right places but they don’t belong everywhere…. When poorly located and designed, tall buildings can physically and visually overwhelm adjacent streets, parks and neighbourhoods. They can block sunlight, views of the sky and create uncomfortable wind conditions in adjacent streets, parks and open space, and create traffic congestion. For these reasons, tall buildings come with larger civic responsibilities and obligations than other buildings.
The longer report also says, very clearly, that the guidelines are guidelines and should be used with other important documents like the “Official Plan, applicable Zoning By-Laws, Secondary Plans and Heritage Conservation District Plans”. They also “should also be afforded some flexibility in application” (Page 12).
Far from being binding on Weston, as she suggests they are, the guidelines themselves say that tall buildings should “fit within the existing or planned context and provide an appropriate transition in scale down to lower-scaled buildings, parks, and open space.” It is not clear to me that this building is in context with the rest of our community.
I do not think that Nunziata’s shadow argument is very good either. The area of a shadow is the function of the height and the width. Certainly, a wider building casts a shadow that lasts longer in the area that it reaches—but a taller building casts a longer shadow and reaches out farther. The area affected will be, mathematically, exactly the same.
Nunziata’s pamphlet says that there will be rezoning meetings and a community consultation. I certainly hope that we can get more facts with less spin than we received this time from our councillor.