Toronto 171-175 Lowther Avenue | 44.85m | 11s | Raleigh Residences | Gabriel Fain Architects

HousingNowTO said:
All depends on who the "we" are, I guess...?

Our Affordable Housing volunteers are strong supporters of both converting well-located, transit-served sites currently zoned as 'Neighbourhoods' 🟨 (low rise residential) into to 'Apartment Neighbourhoods' 🟧 (much higher density),
Click to expand...

I can agree w/this; though the context matters. I would neither uniformly support it, nor uniformly oppose it.

HousingNowTO said:
and we also advise our not-for-profit colleagues on the benefits of adding of 5 to 10 storeys as a minor variances (Not appealable to the OLT).
Click to expand...

This I would generally oppose, as I think honesty and integrity matter, both in process and in people; minor variances that by any reasonable measure are not minor in nature but substantive are a disingenuous end-run on the process and a betrayal of those who bargain in good faith. Liars deserve no rewards.

HousingNowTO said:
There has never been "strategic proactive planning" during my 30+ years in Toronto -- there has only ever been "politically-reactive planning"
Click to expand...

This I agree with.........unfortunately........I certainly wish it were different.

****

This next sentence needs separation.

HousingNowTO said:
in which the Local Councillor.........treated members of groups like the Annex Residents Association, ABCRA, FoNTRA - and others like they should have privileged hyper-local access to define housing and growth decisions that have city-wide impacts.
Click to expand...

Yes.

HousingNowTO said:
and City Staff treated members of groups like the Annex Residents Association, ABCRA, FoNTRA - and others like they should have privileged hyper-local access to define housing and growth decisions that have city-wide impacts.
Click to expand...

I would disagree w/this one. First off, to the extent staff are mandated to listen to public opinion (that is what a community consultation is nominally about) they are obliged to consider those who represent the views of a material portion of community members (or assert such a claim)

That said.............I will offer that projects on which @HousingNowTO has identified the need for additional density, and where I have agreed, have generally seen same; and that suggests a very sympathetic ear from City Planning when you make the right arguments.

HousingNowTO said:
The ARA are now fighting this proposed small 11-storey / 64 Unit Residential Condo adjacent to existing apartment neighbourhood lands, with the same "bag of process-blocking tricks" that they have used for decades -- including when they fought against this even smaller 4-storey / 48 unit Purpose-Built Rental (+29 net new apartments) proposal located on Huron about a 10-minute walk away from the Lowther site we are discussing - https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2019/12/four-storey-purpose-built-rental-proposed-huron-street.40134
Click to expand...

The ARA can indeed be a royal pain at times............. I sympathize w/some of their underlying concerns, to a point, but their penchant for hyperbole and obstinance across the board is taxing.

That said, the ARA only hold as much weight at they are allowed to............. ;)

HousingNowTO said:
The system is fundamentally broken, and well-funded Retiree & Ratepayers groups are a HUGE part of the problem in Toronto.
Click to expand...

Not entirely wrong, but a bit too extreme a take for me.

Proactive planning is better than reactive planning, zero question.

The City is showing vastly more flexibility than in the past, and broadly, this is good.

The residents associations often have legitimate concerns and sometimes, expressly them quite thoughtfully.

I cannot and never will support a dictatorship that ignores people's views and concerns and dismisses them as trivia w/o evidence.

That said, there are certainly obnoxious RA's that need to be tamed. That process is ongoing. ;)
 
Kenojuak said:
Moore, A. A., & McGregor, R. M. (2021). The representativeness of neighbourhood associations in Toronto and Vancouver. Urban Studies, 58(13), 2782-2797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020964439
Click to expand...

Here's the thing.......who do you suppose is on the executive of their tenants association? I have knocked on every door, I don't generally have any issues w/the neighbours, and the landlord takes my calls.

It can work properly. That it does not, often, is people who on every side who have developed a penchant for disingenuousness ; for being a bit shy about the fulsome truth, and that treat everyone talking the same way many people read TL: DL (Too long , didn't listen) as opposed to TL: DR (Too Long, didn't read)

Some associations clearly don't represent the views of their entire community; though, in many cases, these are people who choose not to volunteer, not to take a membership, not to go to meetings.

Trust me, we have hundreds of tenants, getting a full executive is a challenge in its own right; but getting more than 10% of tenants out to an Annual General Meeting where we've trotted out to key note speakers, provided refreshments and its free, is a struggle.

That certainly can tilt perspective. But I proactively seek out differing views; and work to represent every view as best as possible.

I will happily call out and work against problem RAs, as I have in the case of the Bayview Cummer Neighbourhood Association and the ARA.

I will equally work with those I find to be constructive and open minded.
 
I don't like this proposal...but unlikely for the same reasons ARA doesn't like it. That is, I want to see more of those elder structures preserved (if they're already not planning to)...then they can build whatever tower there as long as they don't go over to Kirkor.
 
171Lowther-004.jpg


171Lowther-001.jpg


171Lowther-002.jpg


Sometimes when residents lament the loss of green space, they're talking about green plastic:

171Lowther-003.jpg
 
Northern Light said:
@AlexBozikovic has a pretty good piece on this one in the Globe:

www.theglobeandmail.com

A denser city? In The Annex, neighbours say no

A new apartment building in the Annex represents a major assault to Toronto’s single-family ‘Yellowbelt’
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

I could do with tad less of the rhetorical overreach at the beginning, but overall I'm in agreement with Alex here.

This is a very supportable project.

His piece here features some nuance in showcasing one opponent who is actually a rooming house resident, worried the precedent may see her evicted. Alex addresses policies with which the woman may be unfamiliar (rental replacement); though some detail might be missing to discuss her particular circumstance (such as what number of units are in her current home, and that compensation during a displaced period is not always fulsome).
Click to expand...

Thanks for this. My point here is not to imply that the rental replacement and tenant protection policies are perfect. But the alternative is worse. Conversion of a rooming house to a single-family is easy, and it comes with basically zero tenant protections.

I think it’s safe to assume that in another generation there will be no rooming houses left in the Annex.
 
AlexBozikovic said:
Thanks for this. My point here is not to imply that the rental replacement and tenant protection policies are perfect. But the alternative is worse. Conversion of a rooming house to a single-family is easy, and it comes with basically zero tenant protections.

I think it’s safe to assume that in another generation there will be no rooming houses left in the Annex.
Click to expand...
INSERT Jane Jacobs as O.G. (original gentrifiers) context HERE...

GLOBE & MAIL 2006 - 69 Albany Ave.
www.theglobeandmail.com

The places that mattered to Jane Jacobs

In remembering the city's favourite adopted urbanologist, who passed away on Tuesday, DEIRDRE KELLY asks her friends and fellow fighters about the places she held dearest to her heart. Photographs by SIMON HAYTER
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

A former rooming house renovated by her late architect husband, Bob Jacobs, Ms. Jacobs's home of 37 years had a telephone booth preserved from the building's previous incarnation, and, at least during the visit of one guest a decade ago, white plastic patio chairs in the living room. Conversations with guests would often be interrupted by phone calls. After closing the door for privacy, Toronto city councillor Nadine Nowlan remembers, "she would emerge declaring, 'Oh that was so-and-so from New York, or that was so-and-so from Brazil.' "


GLOBE_JANE_JACOBS_69_ALBANY_AVE_20060429_RED_PHOTO.png
 
HousingNowTO said:
INSERT Jane Jacobs as O.G. (original gentrifiers) context HERE...
Click to expand...

In fairness to Ms.Jacobs who was a champion of cities when they were on the decline, particularly in the United States, her actions occurred at a time when urban populations were largely stagnant or declining and homelessness was much less acute than today.

I've never really gone for the villification of gentrifying which simply means you bought into a neighbourhood you could afford, made it a more desirable place to live through your contributions, which in turn raised demand to live there causing rising rent/prices.

The literal opposite was happening when Jacobs did what she did, properties were going uninvested in to the point of becoming decrepit and abandoned. (more of an issue in the U.S. than here, but was an issue here to some degree in certain areas)

Gentrification is a natural part of the real estate cycle. One which requires mitigations (like rent control, and renoviction protections), but isn't evil.

I've always felt the anti-gentrification view was wrong-headed, because it always struck me that it was advocacy for perpetual poverty. The problem is not that someone's fixing up their house, the problem is that someone else has too low an income. Raise everyone out of poverty, and there is no issue; subject to not having a housing market run amok because of artificially and irrationally goosed demand driven by excessive population growth and investors alike.

To be clear, I do favour applying rental replacement policy to rooming houses that are wholesale redeveloped or renovated clearly for investment purposes.

For someone renovating to a principle residence, I don't think that's viable, but I would provide far greater protections than what is currently the case (extended notice, and/or exit payment that would provide someone the cost of moving and several months rent.
 
Last edited:
It's too bad that she didn't write a book about how a bunch of interdependent forces can balance to produce a vibrant urban environment. If she'd had any sense, she could have even proposed some principles to use as a framework to assess decisions. What an idiot!
 
BigWillieCollum said:
A sentence I never thought I would say - well done Gord Perks
Click to expand...
Gord reliably follows the opinion of staff. Staff were in favour here, so this outcome makes sense. The useless bag of blood and bones that is Dianne Saxe moved a motion to reduce the building to 8 storeys (against the advice of staff), but it failed and Gord's motion to approve staff recommendations (at 11 storeys) won the day. A great outcome!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top