Toronto Forêt | 139.26m | 41s | Canderel | BDP Quadrangle

[Develop11]

This is the definition of NIMBY

Well, I guess you didn't read the part about gas station remediation, added pollution (I have a feeling you don't believe in climate change either...) and infrastructure concerns. You are the definition of YISBY (Yes In Someone Else's Backyard).

 

[Develop11]

Instead of a myriad of excuses as to what is wrong with this project, just admit that you hate tall buildings (when they are near you) and had some fantasy about a free park built on the site.

These are not excuses-- you appear ready to excuse the fact that the real estate market is tanking, that pension funds bankrolling developers are destroying mid-rise neighbourhoods of pension holders who are forced out by the noise and congestion and that it is more likely tax payers will pick up the tab for health issues down the road because of sites like this.
Tall buildings account for about 50% of worldwide pollution so yes, I don't think they are worthwhile features and do anything to enhance neighbourhoods any longer. People do not need to be close to downtown 'skyscrapersville' any more because the pattern for working from home has taken hold. Commuting two or three hours to work downtown just isn't feasible so why tell us that we need to increase density in our area for that. For who? Not the taxpayers.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Well, I guess you didn't read the part about gas station remediation, added pollution (I have a feeling you don't believe in climate change either...) and infrastructure concerns. You are the definition of YISBY (Yes In Someone Else's Backyard).

They weren't objecting to that part, but this...

Either way, we who cherish the area for its green spaces and small neighbourhood feel (that is so NOT downtown or even midtown), will see a way of life gone forever. Sorry mister, it ain't progress.

...that reeks of NIMBY'ism. If looks like a duck and quacks like one...

 

[Develop11]

Your real targets are low interest rates and high population growth (both federal gov't policies) which are stoking too much development. Unless those policies are changed (and interest rates are climbing finally), there's just not much we can do about development. Barring that, we must demand the City and developers include upgrades to community facilities, create new amenities, improve the public realm in the vicinity, help fund infrastructure upgrades, etc when new towers are built.

Quick note about ownership in new buildings: over 70% of units in new build condos are owned by Canadian investors renting to other Canadians. It's become a misconception in recent years that foreign investors, high vacancies or AirBnBs are driving the construction boom. Yes, there are a few notorious AirBnB buildings (Ice); and certainly some of the majority renter occupied buildings are in poor shape because of the tenancy style.

But the majority of units are owned by Canadians profiteering off their fellow citizens because of crappy incentives enabled by the government; and rental vacancies are at all-time lows.

Yes, you are right on about the targets. Unfortunately , too many of us have seen developers agree to do the upgrades and then they mysteriously never appear. The nursery and seniors facilities the developers are supposedly incorporating for this site are so small, it is a joke. With added traffic congestion from the owners of these condos and accessibility issues, it is just another burden for the area.

The other 30% foreign ownership is still excessive if you actually count the number of condo units in Toronto and the GTA and put that percentage into hard numbers. PLUS, I have been told that international families send their children to university and college putting them in condos while in school and use this to status to invest in other condos supposedly for family members. Don't know if it is true but that would add to the number of 'Canadian' investors...Large corporate owned rental properties are in poor shape because the owners don't want to cut into their profits. Simple as that though they do have to also contend with deadbeat tenants who are not sufficiently screened at the outset.
Honestly, I think there is some false reporting here about vacancy rates in apartments. Incomes have gone down, corporate pensions are few and far between and people on fixed incomes just cannot afford them anymore with sometimes crazy rental increases. If the provincial and federal government really want people to live in affordable housing, they can retrofit older residential buildings and take empty office buildings which will increase in number and redevelop them into housing. It is green, economically feasible and a sensible way to increase living space but not the footprint.

 

[Undead]

The remaining 30% is not foreign owned. I don't know the exact breakdown, but it should be mostly domestic owners filling in that remainder.

PLUS, I have been told that international families send their children to university and college putting them in condos while in school and use this to status to invest in other condos supposedly for family members. Don't know if it is true but that would add to the number of 'Canadian' investors

This is true for some East Asian international students. But most international students huddle in suburban basements with two beds per bedroom.

Large corporate owned rental properties are in poor shape because the owners don't want to cut into their profits.

I used to live in a rental building owned by a large corporate landlord. They made some moderate improvements to the building which was nice; the bigger problem was the new management bringing in crap tenants.

empty office buildings

Record low vacancies as well, though I agree that a physical office is an anachronism in this day and age.

added traffic congestion from the owners of these condos

Make sure to push for a lower parking ratio during the community consultations.

Unfortunately , too many of us have seen developers agree to do the upgrades and then they mysteriously never appear.

Agreed, and I'm not sure how we hold developers' feet to the fire. The provincial government is too cozy with big biz and munis have relatively little say in the matter. But this doesn't mean just being against development. The issue isn't so black and white.

 

[Develop11]

The weren't objecting to that part, but this...


...that reeks of NIMBY'ism. If looks like a duck and quacks like one...

The remaining 30% is not foreign owned. I don't know the exact breakdown, but it should be mostly domestic owners filling in that remainder.



This is true for some East Asian international students. But most international students huddle in suburban basements with two beds per bedroom.


I used to live in a rental building owned by a large corporate landlord. They made some moderate improvements to the building which was nice; the bigger problem was the new management bringing in crap tenants.


Record low vacancies as well, though I agree that a physical office is an anachronism in this day and age.


Make sure to push for a lower parking ratio during the community consultations.


Agreed, and I'm not sure how we hold developers' feet to the fire. The provincial government is too cozy with big biz and munis have relatively little say in the matter. But this doesn't mean just being against development. The issue isn't so black and white.

I have really enjoyed this debate with you. Your responses are informed and balanced.
For the record, I am not against development, I am against irresponsible development. If a development does not enhance the area, increases traffic congestion, affects green space and infrastructure can't handle it, then it shouldn't happen.

Agreed on the provincial government and let's face it, municipal government being too cozy with developers to make the changes that residents of Toronto and Ontario need but you can hear the bottom up (citizens) starting to boil at being so powerless. I think right now we have to really get neighbourhood associations to lobby for a Council of Neighbourhoods that have a say in development in their neighbourhoods. It has been done in other cities and been successful. We can no longer count on our Mayors, City Councillors and City Planning to help us as they already have too much on their plates and do not have the power to stop developers as you have observed. I think it is the only way forward -- I know SERRA (South Eglinton Resident and Ratepayers' Association) are larger than most and seem to be quite active. It would be great if they could get the ball rolling for a neighbourhood coalition.

I have to disagree with you -- the issue of development is no longer grey but has to be black and white and the lines have to sharply drawn if we as concerned citizens are to make a difference and have responsible developments that grow neighbourhoods in a positive way and do not hem them in with walls of concrete just because somebody gets loaned the money to do it.
Yes, I know what you mean about rentals and corporate landlords not vetting the renters. In the end, they are the ones who really suffer.

 

[adamc]

Hurrah for a beatiful elegant development that will bring a fitting sense of prominence to this important but currently drab and uninspiring major intersection of midtown Toronto!

 

[junctionist]

Hurrah for a beatiful elegant development that will bring a fitting sense of prominence to this important but currently drab and uninspiring major intersection of midtown Toronto!

It's going to improve the intersection. But the materials look like nothing special, the mechanical penthouses look clumsily designed, and it lacks architectural distinctiveness overall.

 

[adamc]

It's going to improve the intersection. But the materials look like nothing special, the mechanical penthouses look clumsily designed, and it lacks architectural distinctiveness overall.

True. I would have liked to see something more iconic. Its an improvement but not great. Maybe at the consultations we can push them for something more inspiring. Its the last chance for the intersection of St, Claire and Bathurst.

 

[Vertigo3000]

Are you really in this area??? The 1467 Bathurst Street site sits on the northeast corner of St.Clair and Bathurst. The developers will also build on 490 St.Clair Avenue West adjacent to the site (now St. Mikes parking lot next to Joes and Loblaws)which has never been tested for the gasoline leak and which I find really scary as gasoline leaks travel east.
There was a plan to build on top of Loblaws which is on top of the subway station and far east of La Foret but I don't think it is still on the table. The Foret site DOES NOT sit directly above a subway stop. There will be shadows over the supposed park they build and the school behind it. The wind tunnel effect was something you did not mention. If you live in this area, then you are very aware of it at that corner. Of course, you don't even bother to mention the contractors working on the site digging up that contaminated soil and being exposed to it. Who is caring about their welfare?
On Loblaws-- it will be opposed to the traffic congestion which as we know can kill a business. Just ask the retail stores on Eglinton who have been roped off for the subway extension.
Furthermore, how can you say the scale is great at 30 plus storeys in what essentially is a low and mid-rise neighbourhood to the west and south of it? You do not have any thing of value to say here and I am wondering how you can actually say you are speaking the truth when you cannot get your facts straight.

The building could be 100 floors, it'd still never cast a shadow on the park lol not how shadows work, if Toronto was in the southern hemisphere then you'd have a point, but unfortunately for you Toronto is in the northern hemisphere.

 

[Develop11]

Hurrah for a beatiful elegant development that will bring a fitting sense of prominence to this important but currently drab and uninspiring major intersection of midtown Toronto!

HA HA - sense of prominence --more like a hulking presence destroying a mid-rise neighbourhood. Mid-rise neighbourhoods have a right to exist and to have any development fit into their neighbourhood not the other way around.

 

[Develop11]

The building could be 100 floors, it'd still never cast a shadow on the park lol not how shadows work, if Toronto was in the southern hemisphere then you'd have a point, but unfortunately for you Toronto is in the northern hemisphere.

You are missing the school behind it???? Are you telling me it will not cast a shadow there and on the supposed park they are creating? If you know so much about shadows, you must know about wind tunnels. You are also neglecting to mention a wind tunnel effect which already exists. It has been reported that streetcar windows have blown out at this intersection when winds are really high. By the way, I am pleased that Toronto is in the northern hemisphere and also pleased that based on your input, you know this too.

 

[Develop11]

True. I would have liked to see something more iconic. Its an improvement but not great. Maybe at the consultations we can push them for something more inspiring. Its the last chance for the intersection of St, Claire and Bathurst.

What consultations???? Do you actually think it will make a difference to push for something at this stage?? I hoped that St. Clair and Bathurst would get something better than a cheap ugly development style like St. Clair and Yonge or Yonge and Eglinton on the east and south side. The City Planners have got this wrong but they really don't care and that is who we have taking care of our neighbourhoods. Mid-rise and low-rise are out but' let's allow garden homes to placate'. So wonderful to live in Toronto.
Foret condos have nothing to do with the area quality of life, rent affordability or the preservation of green space. I mean look at the horror of the Toronto waterfront coming in from the airport - one tall building after another blocking off the lake. Toronto did have a chance to do it right the way Chicago did with their waterfront planning but we blew it there and we are blowing it in our neighbourhoods. The developers win for now and we residents remain the losers.

 

[Vertigo3000]

You are missing the school behind it???? Are you telling me it will not cast a shadow there and on the supposed park they are creating? If you know so much about shadows, you must know about wind tunnels. You are also neglecting to mention a wind tunnel effect which already exists. It has been reported that streetcar windows have blown out at this intersection when winds are really high. By the way, I am pleased that Toronto is in the northern hemisphere and also pleased that based on your input, you know this too.

St Michaels is a private school not a public park and I couldn't care at all about it. The buildings at this intersection will be similar in scale to the buildings directly across the street on the south east and north west corners, which you'd know if you were being honest. And there are 2 buildings of similar scale on the other side of St Michaels football field to the east. There 100% is TTC directly below the site, the entrance to the station is less than a minutes walk, the portal for the streetcar to enter St Clair West station is right in front of this site. The site has also been doing soil remediation for years, so I'm not sure where you are getting this blasphemous lies about not knowing what's in the soil.

None of your claims are true, and denying the existence of scale and the presence of the TTC St Clair West subway station and then pivoting to calling a private school property as a park when the park to the south cannot be used for your points is just incredible levels of dishonesty.

I rarely comment here but I am at this intersection every day so felt compelled to respond, but this thread is wildly off track with dishonest talk about the project and should be redirected to talking about the reality of the project and not some make belief claims propounded by some NIMBY. Can we delete all these messages?

*edited

 

[DavidCapizzano]

people really be putting chicago's waterfront up on a pedestal but a lot of it just looks like this lmao

I am not sure if everyone shares this opinion, but in my mind the public has no duty to private schools to ensure access to sunlight in the way that we try and extend to public schools. Further, this area isn't specifically a mid rise neighbourhood - it's a mix of low, mid and high rise buildings, some of which have been there for going on 40+ years.

Secondly, you don't seem to comprehend that there are thousands of professionals in this province who spend every waking hour of their work lives dealing with environmental remediation. They know how to do this correctly, and our government requires a lengthly process of approvals to ensure things are done without causing unnecessary harm. There are hundreds of thousands of polluted sites across this province and we as a society will ultimately have to deal with the mistakes of our past. I have complete confidence that any remediation work done here will be done sensitively and in the correct way.

It is one thing to take issue with certain aspects of a project, and to try and collaboratively work with the community, councillor and developer to resolve, or at the very least come to some kind of mutual understanding regarding said issues. But what is very obvious to me is that you don't really seem like you want to work together to find better outcomes here - I believe in your mind your only ideal resolution would be to build something here at a lower height. You seem to view the hight and density as some sort of personal affront to you and your community, a community which you seem to feel you are the main voice of.

I don't really know how to communicate this to you gently, so I won't. You are not going to get everything you want here. No amount of quasi-legal obstructions or delays will land you a result you will be satisfied with. Your best option for some small morsel of happiness would be to try and set up a working group so that you can express your concerns and try to ensure changes during the SPA process to minimize any adverse impacts.