Toronto 2-6 The Donway East | 99.5m | 29s | Resident | BDP Quadrangle

[Northern Light]

@TeresaDest

@Undead is very much on-point that the way to address traffic concerns at this stage is to lobby for less parking in the proposal (meaning fewer cars). One way to help achieve this may also be to lobby for the inclusion of more market-rental units, as opposed to condos, as rental units typically see less parking per unit.

Another argument in favour of a lower parking supply and something you may wish to consider is the strong likelihood that the Ontario Line will be extended along Don Mills at some future point, probably to at least Sheppard, and maybe even points north.

It is, of course, true that the latter will likely not occur before the late 2030s........

But neither is this proposal imminent.

Assuming it spent a normative amount of time in planning, and the developer moved with some haste, you're looking at occupancy in the late 2020s.

The developer, however, may wish to sit on this proposal once gaining approval, since a formal announcement of an Ontario Line extension would considerably augment its value.

****

Additional measures can be taken to lessen existing traffic by making walking, cycling and transit more pleasant in the community; that may be a cause you wish to take up.

 

[TeresaDest]

Understood.

However the reality of the fundamental equation still stands:

More units = More people = More cars = More traffic.

 

[Northern Light]

Understood.

However the reality of the fundamental equation still stands:

More units = More people = More cars = More traffic.

There is a measure of truth there........

But two thoughts....

One, Toronto (the City proper) is growing by roughly 100,000 people per year and will into the foreseeable future; irrespective of whether one wishes it was so..........(fighting that is a whole different thing; and Federal and Provincial not a City matter).....
That being the case.........every neighbourhood will see significant growth when the City as a whole is expected to add up to 50% more people over the next 20-30 years.

The question then becomes not whether there are more people in each area, but how they live; and how they move about......

That will require change, both from those who move into newly created homes; and from those already in each community.

***

Second......as much as it's tempting to accept what would seem obvious, that 50% more people, must mean 50% more traffic..........it actually isn't so.......necessarily.

Downtown Toronto has seen explosive growth over the last 2 decades. Not just in residents, but in workers.
Yet, the number of cars moving about downtown is in the same range as 20 years ago.

Almost all the new movement has come in the form of GO Transit/TTC for those commuting in; and walking and cycling for those who live downtown.

That might seem near impossible to imagine........and yet it is so.

Likewise Don Mills can and will, of necessity, change.

Residents can't really stop change (or at least that is highly unlikely).......

But what they can do is influence its form..............you can help get the details right.

 

[interchange42]

Currently only 160 units.

Proposed - A total of 1,185 new residential units comprise 991 condominium and 194 rental tenure units, including 160 rental replacement units.

Comment - the new development is a staggering increase of over 7 x the existing level of units.

Question - Where is the completed traffic study for the increase in vehicles in a small area.

Note- The Traffic there is already problematic with morning drop offs and after-school pickups.

The excess level of vehicular traffic is especially concerning as it relates to the 2 schools located on Donway East (an elementary school and a high school).

There is no level of safety measures that can be put into effect that would be able to counteract the avalanche of cars on Donway East.

Parents, I fear for your children.

Stay safe.

You were asking about the Transportation Impact Study. It's linked on the 4th page of the Supporting Documentation at this link.

42

 

[Northern Light]

This one is the subject of a Preliminary Report to the next meeting of the North York Community Council.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-198824.pdf

In reading that report, this one will face lots of pushback, and it most certainly will not come out the other end of the sausage maker looking as it does today.

From the report:

The inset section above is important, that's a guideline the City tends to hold pretty hard on.........arguably they are too sticky on that one......but I digress

Below, however, the language from Parks is clear:

Parks is entirely within their rights on this demand, as such, some site reorganization would seem inevitable.

Remaining Issues:

 

[Gilbert1970]

The proposal by Plaza Partners is completely out of line with the character of Don Mills.
Don Mills was the first planned community in Canada, and consists of a well planned balance of various types of homes, businesses, parks and community facilities. The proposal by Plaza Partners far exceeds the height of buildings in the vicinity, including that of new developments at the Shoppes at Don Mills.

The infrastructure, and particularly the road network in the area does not support the addition of residents of 1,000 new condo units. If approved, this project will significantly contribute to the current and worsening grid lock on the Donway at Don Mills Road.
The hugely increased volume of traffic will constitute a danger to children travelling to and from Greenlane public school and to youth travelling to and from Don Mills CI. It will also endanger the lives of hundreds of residents who enjoy walks on the sidewalks, in the parkettes and to the stores. The proposed towers are not consistent with the current and projected demographics of Don Mills, which includes large numbers of seniors living in their own homes and in congregate settings

The six- story brick clad foundations are suitable for the Don Mills community. The Manhattan style steel towers are not suitable or acceptable.

 

[toronto647]

The proposal by Plaza Partners is completely out of line with the character of Don Mills.
Don Mills was the first planned community in Canada, and consists of a well planned balance of various types of homes, businesses, parks and community facilities. The proposal by Plaza Partners far exceeds the height of buildings in the vicinity, including that of new developments at the Shoppes at Don Mills.

The infrastructure, and particularly the road network in the area does not support the addition of residents of 1,000 new condo units. If approved, this project will significantly contribute to the current and worsening grid lock on the Donway at Don Mills Road.
The hugely increased volume of traffic will constitute a danger to children travelling to and from Greenlane public school and to youth travelling to and from Don Mills CI. It will also endanger the lives of hundreds of residents who enjoy walks on the sidewalks, in the parkettes and to the stores. The proposed towers are not consistent with the current and projected demographics of Don Mills, which includes large numbers of seniors living in their own homes and in congregate settings

The six- story brick clad foundations are suitable for the Don Mills community. The Manhattan style steel towers are not suitable or acceptable.

Sorry to break it to you... the City of Toronto Planners really don't care about community members opinions. This will get eventually built perhaps with a bit lower floors especially considering the Ontario Line is being built and eventually extended through this area.

 

[interchange42]

Sorry to break it to you... the City of Toronto Planners really don't care about community members opinions. This will get eventually built perhaps with a bit lower floors especially considering the Ontario Line is being built and eventually extended through this area.

Input from community members can have some effect on the planning of new buildings, but I appreciate that you're trying drop @Gilbert1970's expectations of being able to stop this entirely, because you're right, the status quo will not last here. Intensification will come to Don Mills, but just how large it will be approved at is yet to be seen.

42

 

[artyboy123]

New renderings are updated in the database. The overall storey count changed from 32, 28, 24 & 16 storeys to 29, 25, 24 & 12 storeys. Height changed from 105.82m, 94.60m, 82.22m, 59.45m to 98.26m, 85.95m, 83.51m & 45.45m. The total unit count changed from 1185 units to 1176 units.

Rendering taken from the architectural plan via Site Plan approval:

 

[Northern Light]

Hmmm, weird.

None of the info has changed since 2021 under the ZBA; only in the SPA; also no Cover Letter, or Correspondence reflecting the revisions. (there is a Cover Letter but it's quite short and doesn't reflect what we're seeing here)

****

Having a closer look at this, here's the new site plan:

Parks already chirped at them that they expect the full statutory parks obligation here, and that they are short by nearly 900m2, and they've actually reduced the size of the park!

I don't see how that's going to fly.

 

[artyboy123]

Hmmm, weird.

None of the info has changed since 2021 under the ZBA; only in the SPA; also no Cover Letter, or Correspondence reflecting the revisions. (there is a Cover Letter but it's quite short and doesn't reflect what we're seeing here)

Check the planning rationale!

 

[Northern Light]

Check the planning rationale!

There is no Planning Rational on an SPA; and the one attached to the ZBA is still 2021

 

[bkden]

Hmmm, weird.

None of the info has changed since 2021 under the ZBA; only in the SPA; also no Cover Letter, or Correspondence reflecting the revisions. (there is a Cover Letter but it's quite short and doesn't reflect what we're seeing here)

****

Having a closer look at this, here's the new site plan:

View attachment 477356



Parks already chirped at them that they expect the full statutory parks obligation here, and that they are short by nearly 900m2, and they've actually reduced the size of the park!

I don't see how that's going to fly.

Policy has changed since their initial application (thank you Bill 23!). They’re only required to provide 10% of net site area under the new legislation for on site parkland, so they are in conformance now!

 

[Northern Light]

This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of NYCC:

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2024/ny/bgrd/backgroundfile-242896.pdf

The City and the Applicant here do not seem overly far apart. The City is generally fine w/the intended use, and with the heights.

There are some issues around wind, and some around how Building C (the midrise) is sculpted/massed; but really this should be something the two sides can come together on.

 

[flonicky]