Today Thu Fri
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 22, 2013
Thunderstorm
24°/16°		 It is forcast to be Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 23, 2013
Rain
19°/7°		 It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 11:00 PM EDT on May 24, 2013
Partly Cloudy
13°/6°

50 Comments

cityscape

NIMBYism in High Park?

West-end residents fear a new condo may set off "crowding" of Toronto's largest park.

By

The boarded up houses at 1844 Bloor Street West are currently being demolished. Photo by Dean Bradley.

The row of boarded-up Victorian houses fronting High Park has long been an eyesore. Now though, a developer that’s looking to bring a 14-storey high-rise to the site is doing so in the face of fierce community opposition.

Concerned about the design of the proposed condo at 1844 Bloor Street West, residents formed a committee dubbed “This Is My Park” in August of last year and circulated a petition that now includes over 794 signatures.

E.L. Kramp, a 36-year resident of High Park and former chair of the committee, said that residents are opposed to a having a “glass-topped building” in their neighborhood, something which they just don’t think will gel with the area’s century homes.

Residents are also opposed to the proposed height and size of the condo, which will span from Pacific Avenue to Oakmount Road. The current design features two eight-storey wings, with a courtyard in the middle that will be integrated into the streetscape. The 14-storey section of the building will be set back 80 feet from the curb.

Kramp would prefer a five-story building at the sidewalk, stepping back to eight-storeys.

“I was just one of many residents who thought it was a totally inappropriate design—it was much too big and not the right style of building for the neighborhood,” she said. “We wanted something that would fit in with the architecture here.”

The developer, Daniels Corporation, first met with the community in June of 2010 to solicit feedback for the condo design, and has held three more community consultations with the City of Toronto since then.

The proposed condo at 1844 Bloor Street West. Image courtesy of Daniels Corporation.

Daniels subsequently made changes to their original design, in response to City and community feedback. Daniels’ current plan includes masonry and stone in the lower portions of the building; Neil Pattison, senior manager of development at Daniels insists that the rest of the building be clad in glass to prevent the building from appearing overly heavy.

“This concept didn’t sink in with the residents,” insisted Pattison. “The residents are just objecting to the development in principle, they’re objecting to a 14-storey building period, no matter what it looks like.”

Pattison may be right. Kramp and residents are concerned that the proposed high-rise at 1844 Bloor could be precedent setting, and will result in the “crowding” of High Park. The area does already include a number of high-rise apartments, though they are set back from the park. Pattison argued that the building’s proximity to subway stations and existing infrastructure like Bloor Street is an example of sustainable design.

The reality is that the City of Toronto has designated Bloor Street West as an area intended to support development and greater residential density. This may trump a recent decision by the Etobicoke York Community Council that Daniels work further with community volunteers to refine their design, and that the City report back to council on the process.

In the meantime, Daniels is taking their case to the Ontario Municipal Board.

“Obviously we’re not going to please all the people all the time,” said Pattison. “But we’re confidant that we’ve addressed their concerns and that this development can go forward and be approved on its planning merits.”

A review date with the OMB is still pending.

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Report error Send a tip

Comments

  • MmMmM

    “The residents are just objecting to the development in principle, they’re objecting to a 14-storey building period, no matter what it looks like.”

    …and looming in the background of the lead photo is one of many 1970′s style high rises that occupy the High Park neighbourhood.

    • Density is Coming

      Ha, this is the first thing that came to mind as well.

      This building actually looks like one of the better designed buildings to be proposed recently. The courtyard actually helps the building not crowd the street and park.

      Just look at the Bohemian Embassy on Queen St. W for a taste of what you *could* be dealing with.

  • Dayold

    The problem isn’t the high-rise, its where they want to put that high-rise. If this is allowed to pass, in ten years you won’t be able to see the park from the buildings, much like the queens quay.

    • gimpymw

      From what buildings? The dozens of high rises that sit directly behind the area they propose to develop?

  • Anonymous

    Why does density always have to come in the form of these superblock podiums? The problem isn’t tall buildings, the problem is huge frontages edging out diversity. I’d love to see property taxes scale super-linearly to footprint/frontage.

    • north-west

      Agreed. Toronto has a creative block (no pun intended) when it comes to density based urban design.

      • AD

        Curious – what would you suggest are some creative approaches to density based design? Keep in mind that they need to remain affordable.

        • gimpymw

          Probably tree houses.

  • Rick

    I object to your use ofthe phrase “NIMBY.” There is nothing wrong with people defending their neighborhoods against block-busting developers from beyond.
    If they don’t fight for their home, who will?

    • guest

      but the problem is they only ever seem to fight for THEIR neighbourhood. The exact definition of NIMBY

      • Rick

        Where else would you expect people to fight the most and the hardest?
        Besides, people who question development projects beyond their neighborhood are usually called “outsiders” or trouble-makers. So they can never win.

        • gimpymw

          They are troublemakers. Their anachronistic views prevent the the city from developing properly. Its funny because I’ve heard about all this opposition from local residents but lived in the area for seven years and I don’t remember anyone asking me about this. FYI, I don’t have issue with it.

    • Anonymous

      You’re picking the wrong fight.

      You should have fought the subway instead.

      Subways have pros and “cons” – intensification.

      And I fail to see how this development is “block busting” – it’s shorter than many of the other buildings directly next to it, and it has RETAIL which is something that doesn’t exist on that area of Bloor for several blocks in either direction.

    • gimpymw

      Block was busted 40 years ago. The houses in question were the things that did not belong in the area.

  • Jonathan

    Consider the fact that living one block from this “proposed development”, the original plan (of over 18 storeys) had my residence shrouded from the sun for all but 4 hours of the day. So if it weren’t for the complaining of the “local residents” that would’ve gone through. Granted, the monstrosities built in the seventies are ageing and an eyesore, but they don’t line Bloor like some kind of “glass glad” fencing around the park that will cram new residents in to block the view of those who have lived here for over 50 years. After all, I can see why the developer holds little value in the opinions of the actual people living there… So long as they aren’t on land they want to buy.

  • http://twitter.com/mikeykolberg Michael Kolberg

    Can somebody send these folks a photo of the edge of Central Park?

    • Anonymous

      OH you can’t do that! Toronto, right down to its individual streets can never look at what has been done elsewhere. It is the most unique city in the world.
      Tongue in cheek in case you didn’t get it.

    • Anonymous

      we aren’t new york so why should we send a photo?

      • DUMMY

        we are toronto, land of the complainers.

  • north-west

    I am a bit on the fence here, for starters I think that projects that increase the density in places north of Condo Land (aka queen and king streets) are good for the city as a whole. Toronto has a growing issue that when areas become more popular their density actually decreases due to the house based architecture (basically people buy it and kick out a portion of the tenants). However I think that Toronto has a problem when it comes to density based design solutions.

    There are lots of ways to develop density that isn’t a big glass block. For example: a mixed design of town houses, smaller buildings that could support ground level retail, and some mid-rises could could also work for the kind of street front infill being looked at in this case.

    I think the residents have a valid concern about the height and scale when it comes to street front, and meetings about design and placement are not necessarily NIMBY. But homeowners need to also need to realize that density based building is going to happen around them and come to the table with some workable ideas. Also developers: you need to listen to the community you are building in. True, you can’t please everyone all the time, but open discussion is hopefully viewed as constructive to the design process.

    • AD

      The

      • AD

        oops …. the problem is affordability. The kind of design that you’re talking about can be done. However, the cost per square foot will jump up tremendously. The only people that will be abble to afford it would rather get a detatched home in the neighbourhood. From the detaisl I’ve seen, these units will all be small 400 to 600 square feet. Compare that to the other buildings in the area. This was once considered only for bachelors. One of the reasons developers keep the size down, is to ensure affordability. The price per square foot goes up, you sacrifice on size because there is a magic 300k number where people in this current market of low interest rates deem this affordable.

        I agree that there needs to be a view to integrating the design into the neigbourhood. For me that does include more brick and stone work. I woul dliek to see it primarily on the lower levels. The upper levels clad in glass in fine. I am also not a bog fan of balconies. People store the junk on them and detroy the intended clean look.

  • Sam-butera

    What was the point of destroying Victorian houses? Some kakamemi shopping complex, plus a few condos – where is the common sense, non-gravy Mayor Ford? They could have kept the area clean with the old trees – I am sure the Lords of the New World Order are laughing somewhere

    • DUMMY

      yup, new world order objective is to demolish all victorian architecture in toronto.

  • Vampchick21

    Abandoned beautiful old homes always instill in me a sense of sorrow. I just want to buy them up and make them proper homes again. I wish there was a way they could have incorporated those old houses into the new development instead of destroying them.

    • GuestUno

      Unfortunately the condo developer did the opposite in this case. I grew up in this area and my parents still live there and these houses were scooped up one by one for close to a decade by the developer. I’m sure they paid obscenely above market value, only to board them up and tear them down.

      • Vampchick21

        That’s a shame really. I don’t live in High Park, I’m in Parkdale, but I do love to head up and walk along that route sometimes. I think those houses are lovely and it would have been fantastic for them to be incorporated, it would have been in keeping with the appearance of the area for sure. Never mind that I’m a complete sucker for old victorian homes.

    • gimpy

      I live a block away from the development. The houses that were once there were not that beautiful and unless you had millions you wouldn’t been able to buy them.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it so hard to create a large building that is in keeping with the surronding building styles? There’s no reason something 18 storeys high has to be all glass and steel.

    • gimpymw

      The surroundung buildings are mostly Rental towers that were built in the 70′s and are built from ugly yellow brick. The glass is an improvement.

      • Anonymous

        I was thinking more of the Victorian brick with twiddly bits.

  • Anonymous

    Why are they objecting to a low high-density building that is near a heavy rail transit line? Isn’t that the appropriate development needed for a heavy rail transit line (Subway)?

    Now transfer the same development to Sheppard East, which also be appropriate for a Sheppard Subway extension.

    • Tommy

      Expensive condos with lots of parking don’t create transit fares. It’s just as likely that these residents (and condo owners along Sheppard) drive instead of taking the TTC. Employment and feeder bus routes drive subway usage to the point of financial feasibility. Loading condos onto subways lines may be good for real estate prices, but they don’t pay for the transit cost.

      • Anonymous

        FYI one of the arguments used by NIMBY’s, is how it will burden the already crowded transit system. Of course they also use the too much traffic argument at the same time. Not to be missed is the more people creates a too much burden on the neighbourghood. You see they have an argument for everything. If they got there way we would be living in grass huts by the lake.
        No wonder they all run to the OMB

        • north-west

          There’s nothing wrong with talking about different options for density based housing with neighbourhood residents. Something high density will get built. Consultation is part of that process.

        • bzine

          Uhm actually if they got their way people would be living in rejuvenated Edwardian houses.

          • http://liyufx.wordpress.com/ Yu

            Ah, yes, 5 families who can fork out 1.5m each get to live in rejuvenated Edwardian houses. Or with this hundreds with middle income can live there and enjoy subway, and “your” park.

          • bzine

            Don’t kid yourself. The developers will be making much more than 1.5 million selling these shoddy glass shoeboxes.

            And yes cramped substandard housing like this drives the price of real estate up.

            But you know thanks for portraying ME rather than the developers as elitist.

      • http://liyufx.wordpress.com/ Yu

        Show me your research that say the condo residents won’t be transit users. I am just guessing, but I’d bet good money that this building will add a magnitude (or two) more transit users than the 5 or so single detached houses that could be built there.

  • Anonymous

    One of the only things Torontonians like more than bitching is free money. Feed the self-interest by pointing out how much their property values will increase and that should shut them up.

    • Anonymous

      Torontonians really need to pick their battles. Being against everything diminishes the message. Last month, some of the same people were simultaneously decrying the destruction of Odette House and the restoration of the Big Bop building as a CB2 outlet.

      That mix of houses on that block is an appealing mix of decades, but the houses themselves are pretty average.

      Here are some heritage properies in other cities that were worth fighting for:
      Mole Hill, Vancouver: http://www.mole-hill.ca/
      Alamo Square, San Francisco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alamo_Square,_San_Francisco

    • DUMMY

      Torontonians are the most bitchiest, do nothing culture of humanity I have ever come across.

  • http://liyufx.wordpress.com/ Yu

    In general I see this building’s height and density is very appropriate to the location. We need to bring this kind of mid-highrise building to our avenues, especially Bloor, to take advantage of the existing infrastructure. The added residents and street front can inject much needed street life to that stretch of Bloor. Now my critic of the design, the 14-storey slab that spans the whole block. It would be a much better design if it is broken down to two towers (higher, to make up the difference in density), leaving a view corridor, or better yet, and mid-block path to the north between the towers. If that is done, it is going to be a fantastic addition to High Park neighbourhood.

    • gimpymw

      There would be nothing to view through your corridor except the 20 story towers that sit directly behind the development

  • Bile

    I say restore the five victorian houses for the enjoyment of five millionaire families who drive their jaguars and Range Rovers to their Bay Street offices and cottages in Muskoka instead of two hundred middle income families who use public transit….

    • bzine

      Typically these structures feature 8 x10 bedrooms with 12 x 17 kitchen, dining, living so they are more suited for single individuals or *maybe* couples. The building looks like it’s going to be so cramped–even by the standards of seventies high rises–it would be *really* difficult to raise a kid there.

    • http://www.facebook.com/sharon.l.harris Sharon Harris

      Wasn’t just houses. Small apartment building too. The houses that were there were mostly split into apartments.

  • http://twitter.com/greenwoodinn Ed Horner

    Lot of talk here about “Victorian” era houses being demolished. While styles range from post modern, to Georgian to Arts and Crafts, there doesn’t appear to be a single example of a Victorian era house anywhere from Pacific to Oakmount. ONly the turreted house at the corner of Bloor and Oakmount has any element of Victorian embelishments at all.

  • LTJ

    I think eight storeys in the rear and five in the front is ALMOST reasonable scale. However, I’m betting the people on the eighth floor of the high-rise a block behind won’t think so.

  • misterscience

    High Park is not Toronto’s largest park. That would be Rouge Park at 5,000 hectares (compared to High Park’s 161).