Historicist: "The city that nobody loves"
Elsewhere in the Ist-a-Verse
There goes another chunk of the 'hood. The ground is all chewed up, the renta-fence is in place, and Queen West's on-street parking just got a little bit worse. The cars have been kicked off the corner lot at Queen and Portland streets, ready for the construction crews to move in. The neighbourhood is a big step closer to getting ninety more condo suites, anchored by a big-box Home Depot. May, 2010, is the projected date for occupancy.
According to the Toronto Star, the units will start at $329,000 for 676 square feet, rising to $692,000 for 1,269 square feet. The development is to be crowned by a 20,000 square-foot rooftop park. (That's for residents only. You won't even be able to see it from the street. But if you're walking by and feel as if someone's looking down on you, you may be right.
Who, other than Home Depot, will be in the two floors of retail space below the apartments? That's anyone's guess right now. But the way rents are going, it'll be high rather than low end. Duke's Cycle? Maybe not. Speaking of which, just up the block, one of the fence panels around the scene of the disastrous February fire that destroyed Duke's and several other well-established businesses has fallen down. There's not a lot of site clearance going on there: it remains choked with debris, and, eight months later, you can still faintly smell burning. The least the city could do, if only until a better prospect comes along, is turn it into a parking lot; the block certainly needs it now. The new condo building will have parking but only for the larger apartments—and only if the occupant is willing to pony up an additional forty grand for a space.
Photos by Bill Taylor
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Yay! More condos!
"The least the city could do, if only until a better prospect comes along, is turn it into a parking lot; the block certainly needs it now."
Unless the City has bought the land, it can't just march in and install a parking lot.
In any event, I believe that the City would be reluctant to enter into any agreements with the landowners to provide surface parking on the site, or grant permission to the owners to open surface parking lots, because "temporary" parking lots have a tendency in many cases to become very permanent. And a surface parking lot would not be a positive contribution to the streetscape.
I'm with CanadianSkeezix. Any elimination of surface parking in favour of higher density development is a plus in my book. Temporary parking wouldn't solve anyones problems.
Im with 2 and 3 as well. As much as i tend to also not be too keen on so many condos going up, i think what the problem is is the architecture of those condos (bland, unspectacular). I get the feeling that people wouldnt bash condos so much if they actually looked good and enhanced the cityscape. Because in the end, if there is a demand to live downtown, then all the better.
A properly designed (knee wall in line with existing buildings, landscaping and tree pits, etc) surface parking is an acceptable use in the interim, even if that means 10, 20 or 40 years. Plenty of parking lots have been developed into high density development in Toronto.
You seemed so pleased that Duke's was taking the space of a defunct auto dealership, but now you want the city to build parking for cars?
How about a temporary park?
A third of a million dollars, and then maintenance fees, for under 700 square feet?
rek: that would be because of the ever-popular "hip downtown address fee".
mrs: Then ask the City to create an urban design committee to review and approve the exterior design of the building.
Vincent: the city already has a design review panel, but it's not mandatory for developers to take their projects there. The panel does exactly that, evaluating projects on architectural and urban design grounds, providing feedback for possible revisions. Some projects even get taken back for a second or third review.
As a homeowner on Portland, although I am vaguely disturbed by the fact that yet another construction site is popping up on my street, my anxiety will all be washed away if one of those two floors of retail space is occupied by a grocery that doesn't charge $4 for a tomato, FRESH AND WILD.
I am not holding out hope for this.
Mark: Then make it mandatory. Have the City of Toronto change their OP so that urban design review is mandatory.
Alternatively, the City could ask for similar planning powers as Vancouver has. Council approves the policies but implementation of those policies and approval of development is the responsibility of the Planning Department.
Just some food for thought.
I might be wrong but I believe the design review panel is still in its pilot phase. I'm not sure if the plan is to make it mandatory, but it would need to be expanded, cost a lot more and there would need to be a threshold for what developments must be reviewed by the panel. If every little development application had to go through the panel it would create a massive backlog.
Unfortunately, the new design review panel is also seriously flawed, leaving architects and design teams open to the whims and aspersions of the jury, which is in many cases made up of their competitors.
buddylove, I would think your anxiety would be washed away watching your property value increase.
"Unfortunately, the new design review panel is also seriously flawed,"
something that hopefully will get addressed after the pilot period has ended, if full implementation is approved.