Leslieville / Studio District

[AlvinofDiaspar]

OMB Decision:

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/pl051314-mar-03-2009.pdf

AoD

 

[nfitz]

The huge parking lots there at the Loblaws and other stores are a huge eye sore.

They are - and they have been there a long time. They are old buildings and prime for redevelopment. If there was large-scale redevelopment in the area, I'm sure that better uses for these lands would appear naturally. Look at the new Canadian Tire at Leslie/Lakeshore. While certainly not perfect, and with many issues of it's own, it's got some positive points, and makes good use of the Lakeshore/Leslie intersection itself.

 

[digi]

At least the developer didn't resort to threats of violence

How do you know it wasn't the developer? You seem to think you know what the future holds...why not fill us all in?

 

[realtycoon]

Forgive me if I let out an editorial chuckle. Heh heh.

What, might you ask faces the important intersection of Bathurst and Centre? A blank wall of a Wal-Mart! The Thornhill "Smart" Centre isn't really a great example of a model to follow.

But if you go to "Disera Dr" (to the West) they managed to build a nice little street front with shops, restaurants, cafes etc.

 

[299 bloor call control.]

Likewise, if you go one block north of the Eastern Ave. Site, you have Queen Street, where there already *IS* a "nice little street front with shops, restaurants, cafes etc."

Except the problem is, putting a fake "nice little street" in a SmartCentre at this location severely threatens the real nice little street.

 

[Whoaccio]

I'm quasi happy the Smart Center didn't get built, but I find the manner in which the City/Community opposed it to be very frustrating and counter-productive. From the beginning this had more to do with political concerns than actually determining what was the best use of the land in question. Some might say the end justifies the means, but this just serves to legitimate other NIMBY attempts to stall development elsewhere.

Maybe I am just missing something, but most times when someone proposes a controversial or problematic development there is a dialog between the developer, city and concerned community and we try to meet half way. So, if a condo development exceeds hight restrictions, they contribute money to a park or include a low income housing component. Aside from the haphazard way its carried out, the system works pretty well. This had none of that though. This didn't' even really have anything to do with urban design. It was about WalMart, and what yuppies have against it. Naomi Kleinism.

EDIT: Plus, the whole saving the area for "knowledge" jobs is garbage. Its not like Toronto has a limited supply of office space that the City has to ration it out from company to company. Its a bit more ironic given that technology companies hate "urban" office space. Techy campuses tend to make Smart Centers look like Hong Kong. Silicone Valley is the definition of suburbia.

 

[waterloowarrior]

It shouldn't matter whether it was a Wal-Mart, Zellers, Costco, or IKEA. It shouldn't matter whether the developers were SmartCentres, Riocan, TCHC or Bazis. It shouldn't matter whether the architect was Turner Fleischer, Kirkor, or Sir Norman Foster.

I hope that if it was an IKEA proposed instead of a Wal-Mart, there would still be the same community opposition. . . . . .

 

[Admiral Beez]

Now that two proposals for this land, one residential and one retail commercial have been shot down, what exactly does this community want built there? Film production in Canada is in steep decline, television stations are shutting down instead of investing in content, and business investment is predicted to be low for years. What do they want built there?

 

[ShonTron]

. Techy campuses tend to make Smart Centers look like Hong Kong. Silicone Valley is the definition of suburbia.

I've driven through Silicon Valley. I did a circumnavigation of Infinite Loop and drove around the Googleplex. The buildings are mostly medium-rise (ie 4-12 floors) office buildings with surface and above ground parking, it is true. Consumers Road or Meadowvale, even, is somewhat similar. But these are all relatively high-value employment districts with relatively high density of jobs, much more than a retail power centre. Above is very much an overstatement.

But you do realize why Silicon Valley is where it is, right? It's not so much suburbia (land values can be very, very high, so it's not that), but it is a technology cluster with linkages, attacted by nearby universities and research centres.

Wal-Mart and SmartCentres are the textbook villians of retail development - and SmartCentres is one of the worst offenders, even compared to its peers (ie even RioCan). But yes, to oppose something on this scale I hope wouldn't matter based on who the anchor was - Zellers, Ikea, Wal-Mart. That I can agree on.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Now that two proposals for this land, one residential and one retail commercial have been shot down, what exactly does this community want built there? Film production in Canada is in steep decline, television stations are shutting down instead of investing in content, and business investment is predicted to be low for years. What do they want built there?

apparently 'toronto is back on the radar'

 

[Dilla]

I'm quasi happy the Smart Center didn't get built, but I find the manner in which the City/Community opposed it to be very frustrating and counter-productive. From the beginning this had more to do with political concerns than actually determining what was the best use of the land in question. Some might say the end justifies the means, but this just serves to legitimate other NIMBY attempts to stall development elsewhere.

Maybe I am just missing something, but most times when someone proposes a controversial or problematic development there is a dialog between the developer, city and concerned community and we try to meet half way. So, if a condo development exceeds hight restrictions, they contribute money to a park or include a low income housing component. Aside from the haphazard way its carried out, the system works pretty well. This had none of that though. This didn't' even really have anything to do with urban design. It was about WalMart, and what yuppies have against it. Naomi Kleinism.

EDIT: Plus, the whole saving the area for "knowledge" jobs is garbage. Its not like Toronto has a limited supply of office space that the City has to ration it out from company to company. Its a bit more ironic given that technology companies hate "urban" office space. Techy campuses tend to make Smart Centers look like Hong Kong. Silicone Valley is the definition of suburbia.

While I agree with your assesment that a lot of the sentiment here was driven by "Naomi Kleinism" (nice one), which is bloody annoying, I'm happy with the outcome. I think it did have a lot to with urban design, as well. The reason people weren't as ready to try and negotiate was the horrendous track record of Smart!Centres at keeping their promises. That the OMB agreed with non-development on this one says a lot.

Also, I should mention your take on technology companies is terribly simplistic. They'll move wherever they can for the right price and right location. I don't think many of them demand suburban campuses, and much of the tech world works inside dense cities.

 

[waterloowarrior]

While I agree with your assesment that a lot of the sentiment here was driven by "Naomi Kleinism" (nice one), which is bloody annoying, I'm happy with the outcome. I think it did have a lot to with urban design, as well. The reason people weren't as ready to try and negotiate was the horrendous track record of Smart!Centres at keeping their promises. That the OMB agreed with non-development on this one says a lot.
.

the board liked the design

p.32

In terms of its built form, the proposed development scheme is responsive to its
context and represents the evolution of retail building design in an urban setting. It
eschews the heretofore conventional suburban model of situating a ‘big box’ at the edge
of a sea of parking that generally covers a large site. The proposed buildings are
“pulled out” to the north and south boundaries of the Subject Property to create “strong
edges” along both Eastern Avenue and Lake Shore Boulevard, and to respond to the
City’s goals of street-making. Building elevations are modulated with different brick
colours and punctuated with off-set facades and varying roof-lines – all directed at
emulating a series of individual buildings that reflect the animation and complexity of a
regular city street. In advancing these ideals, the proposed scheme embraces its urban
context and escapes the monolithic features and impact of its suburban predecessors.
Finally, the proposed buildings have been designed to accommodate adaptive reuse
should such need or desire ever arise.

p. 44

Fourth, it is clear from the design of the proposed scheme that Messrs. Fleischer
and Glover pooled their considerable talents to fashion a development that is
appropriately sensitive and responsive to the urban context within which the Subject
Property is situated. The Board was impressed with Mr. Glover’s uncontradicted
evidence that the proposed design exceeds the policies set out in both the City’s 1997
Urban Design Handbook and the 1997 Big Box Retail Design Guidelines.

here's another good quote that was alluded to earlier re: retail jobs

Any comment on the nature of retail employment and its qualitative aspects, if it
is to be taken even half seriously, must acknowledge both the subjectiveness of the
topic as well as its own value-laden underpinnings. For all of the above reasons, the
Board will not contribute to the stigmatization or denigration of retail employment by
making any ruling on its nature and qualitative aspects. The Board will, however,
address retail employment in the context of provincial policy, and that is taken up in the
section of this decision dealing with the Site-Specific Applications.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Good to know that FilmPort is working out.

apparently 'toronto is back on the radar'

Tough time to be launching any kind of business. I'll bet that, if they fill the big stage and still have demand, the Eastern Avenue site will be taken out of mothballs. That would be an ironic twist to this tale: Rose gets their new studio, and then gets to fill up its old studio since Toronto is popular again and their biggest competitor had its waterfront studio bulldozed... I'm sure someone can hang a conspiracy theory on those thin threads...

Here, kitty, kitty, Alleykatty...

 

[Whoaccio]

Can anybody provide a link to renders of the project?

 

[TOinTO]

The OMB decision seems to have been based entirely on accepting the risk that the development would lead to the surrounding employment lands also turning to big box retail. This is called 'contagion'. There is a clause in the official plan that says employment lands should not be used for retail if there is a risk of retail 'contagion' affecting adjacent employment lands.

First, they had to accept that there was an employment area there. Second, they accepted that the value of the surrounding lands would be higher if they were converted to retail. The proposal itself, and the coin that Smart Centres was prepared to pay for the property, served as evidence of that.

They largely dismissed the city planners as incompetent buffoons. They condemned the city's maneuvers as panicky, ineffective and in bad faith. This seems to be standard from the OMB decisions that I have looked at. (Must be fun to be a city planner. Over worked in an understaffed department and repeatedly treated like an idiot by a bunch of fake judges)

They praise the quality and professionalism of the developer's proposal and the developer's witnesses. Also standard for these things, it seems.

I can't help thinking that the motivations for this decision are political and that the reasoning in the decision is a justification after the thought. Many of the reasons presented in the decision for accepting one claim and rejecting another seem thin and arbitrary.

For example, the argument is made, in favour of the development, that if 'contagion' were a risk, the property next to Price Choppers (also a film studio) would have already converted retail. In response, the Board declares the Price Choppers property beyond the universe that is relevant to the matter before them! Eh? It's just two doors down? I can think a lot of rebuttals to the developer's argument, but the OMB just says, "Sorry, that's not an adjacent property, we're not listening!"

I don't know of any reason to think that the OMB is independent from Provincial government influence.

I'm delighted with this result. I despise big box retail and I'm have no problem with these lands sitting idle for a few years, if that's the worst outcome.

But the OMB has got to go. It infantilizes city government. No other level of government has to endure a review of whether it's actions were consistent with it stated intentions.