Toronto 656 Danforth Avenue | 160.73m | 49s | Del Boca Vista | Studio JCI

The City can't refuse to build the necessary infrastructure to support demographic changes and then use that intransigence as the justification to demand that immigration/growth policies change to justify their own lack of action.

With what money?

As you point out, the City will need to transition to a higher property tax, lower development fee environment very shortly. Other cities, like Montreal have managed to do well with that. But it is a necessary shift: if TDSB and the City don't have the funds to maintain infrastructure, the solution is to increase taxes and pay for the necessary spending.

They absolutely should raise taxes, but they cannot raise them enough to address growth, there is absolutely no way. That's up to the province of Ontario.

No one is going to pass a 50% tax increase, zero chance, you could raise Marx and Trotsky from the dead and you wouldn't pass that.


If developing these necessary buildings to house population growth is what it take to jump start these changes, then I'm fine with that. The City can't be stuck in a chicken-or-the-egg situation forever.

Stopping growth solves the problem. (well stops it from getting worse). And there is no money to build the services to support 2 dozen of these buildings in this area.

Your insistent position here is that you want what you want when you want it; and the facts are irrelevant.

This building also isn't the issue, beyond some minor issues about massing and sidewalk capacity and such, its precedent. Wishful thinking funds nothing.

I don't live in this area, and I'm very pro-density; I'm just exhausted by people's lack of understanding that density also creates problems, and not all growth is sustainable forever.

This line of thought is what brought us to today, it's killed people, sent homelessness skyrocketing, harmed the environment, exacerbated climate change........etc etc.


****

I can hear this exact argument above 20 years ago......if we double the population, finally we'll be able to afford good things; instead, we tripled homelessness, increased commute times and traffic congestion, drove up the urban heat island effect and deteriorated the overall quality of life for the first time in 4 generations.
 
The problem is that refusing to build this development, and other similar developments across the city, doesn't actually stop growth. It just forces people into substandard living conditions, increases rents and prices. If residential growth doesn't happen in this city, people are still going to try to get jobs here, they'll just live out further and commute into the city, leading more carbon-intensive lifestyles. Approving and constructing new buildings like this is what will solve homelessness and reduce pressure on social services: it's the status quo housing policies that have got us into this mess.

I find it hard to be believe that somehow nowadays there are no ways for the Danforth to support the same population that it did 50 years ago. If property taxes were in line with other municipalities in the GTA, there'd be plenty of money for infrastructure. Capital spending can be debt-supported and property taxes can gradually rise over the short term to avoid an overly sudden shock. This state of fiscal exhaustion and paralysis is a political choice, and mercifully may be coming to an end.

This view, the status quo, is the housing failure, not measures taken to address 50 years of bad policy.

1687895598402.png
 
Will a market rate condo full of small units actually address the housing issues the city faces though? Without affordable housing provisions, it just becomes a parking lot for investor capital. Besides, Toronto is building housing as fast as possible, as limited by labour and supply chain issues.

In fact, between 2016 and 2021 new housing supply outpaced population growth in Toronto, yet affordability remains an issue: https://storeys.com/toronto-vancouver-housing-stock-outpace-population-growth/

I'm weary of thinking towers like this will do anything to solve our housing issues, but will rather as @Northern Light points out increase strain on infrastructure and do nothing to improve the livability of the city. And no, I'm not a resident of this neighbourhood who will be impacted by this development. I don't stand to gain or lose anything if this development goes through or not.
 
They're going to settle here. Not full height, but tall. Can we please curb this now?
I find that disappointing.

Call me a NIMBY (I live in Cambridge) but this area does have character, which is not something there is a ton of across the board in Toronto.

I have also long said Toronto needs to address the missing middle to solve its housing crisis. These units simply won’t do it for most people, however I don’t want to further rehash this argument and why this building is so flawed so I’ll leave it at that.

What I will say is I think any big city needs to have distinct neighborhoods that contribute to the overall feel of the city. Toronto has a lot of extreme density that falls off to SFH very quickly. I’m ok with density in the Danforth area but Danforth ave should imo be kept to midrise with an emphasis on design and street level integration.

I’d love to imagine in 30 years Danforth being a classy, pedestrian friendly enclave of midrises surround by a sea of high rises. I know that won’t happen but I think that would create an awesome area to visit in the city.
 
"A mid rise enclave surrounded by a sea of high rises.. "

I would think you would need limited access with bouncers at the gates to prevent the classy, pedestrian friendly enclave to be overrun like the Taste of the Danforth every single day. Average high rise today is 300 units for 550 residents. A sea is millions of people.

The drop off to single family homes, comparably, is not that much of a drop off. I agree that there's not much room for single family life on the current growth trajectory. Single family housing occupies too much space. The price points are beneficial for large scale development and hinder small scale development. Extreme densities are a matter of fact in any case.
 
Will a market rate condo full of small units actually address the housing issues the city faces though? Without affordable housing provisions, it just becomes a parking lot for investor capital. Besides, Toronto is building housing as fast as possible, as limited by labour and supply chain issues.

In fact, between 2016 and 2021 new housing supply outpaced population growth in Toronto, yet affordability remains an issue: https://storeys.com/toronto-vancouver-housing-stock-outpace-population-growth/

I'm weary of thinking towers like this will do anything to solve our housing issues, but will rather as @Northern Light points out increase strain on infrastructure and do nothing to improve the livability of the city. And no, I'm not a resident of this neighbourhood who will be impacted by this development. I don't stand to gain or lose anything if this development goes through or not.
be careful comparing 2021 census data as Toronto temporarily lost a decent chunk of its population through the pandemic as students and many young people returned home.

One must also consider shrinking average household size which puts extra pressure on housing markets. Even if Toronto were to stop population growth entirely, we would still need a decent pace of new housing construction as the average number of people per unit has been declining.
 
The Appeals Report for this one is headed to the next meeting of TEYCC. Staff seeking to attend OLT in objection.


From the above:

1694099218586.png

***

1694099282778.png


**

1694099308724.png


Comments: There are a few other issues raised, including the need for affordable housing, but most are minor.

The public realm comments are pretty spot on; there is certainly a need for greater sidewalk width on both the Danforth and Pape frontages.

The separation distance issue comes up, as predicted and will require addressing.

Overall, the City's take here is pretty clear, they accept a Tall Building on this site, but not this tall, the streetwall must be shorter (yes), setbacks are required. There is certainly a settlement to be had here; but it's not just a height trim (though I would rate that a given); this will require a major re-work.
 
The Appeals Report for this one is headed to the next meeting of TEYCC. Staff seeking to attend OLT in objection.


From the above:

View attachment 504846
***

View attachment 504849

**

View attachment 504850

Comments: There are a few other issues raised, including the need for affordable housing, but most are minor.

The public realm comments are pretty spot on; there is certainly a need for greater sidewalk width on both the Danforth and Pape frontages.

The separation distance issue comes up, as predicted and will require addressing.

Overall, the City's take here is pretty clear, they accept a Tall Building on this site, but not this tall, the streetwall must be shorter (yes), setbacks are required. There is certainly a settlement to be had here; but it's not just a height trim (though I would rate that a given); this will require a major re-work.

Regarding Separation:

North: Why would the city request a 12.5 separation to the north if it is not a tower site?
East: Does Metrolinx not own all the lands to the east? there seems to be more than enough land on the remaining block to build 2 more towers with 25 m separation even if 12.5 cannot be achieved on this site. Which means they would likely have to pay for a Limiting Distance Agreement.
 
Regarding Separation:

North: Why would the city request a 12.5 separation to the north if it is not a tower site?

Is there a specific reference to the north property line?

East: Does Metrolinx not own all the lands to the east? there seems to be more than enough land on the remaining block to build 2 more towers with 25 m separation even if 12.5 cannot be achieved on this site. Which means they would likely have to pay for a Limiting Distance Agreement.

Metrolinx does have the lands to the east, but not the whole block, so they to will have to contend with 12.5M setbacks, including 12.5M from the applicant's site. That's pro-forma so you don't encroach on the maximal opportunity your neighbour would otherwise have.

Metrolinx is under no obligation to plan its its site to maximize this applicant, and may indeed have other ideas.

I discussed that two-tower idea on the Mx lands on the previous page:

 
Is there a specific reference to the north property line?



Metrolinx does have the lands to the east, but not the whole block, so they to will have to contend with 12.5M setbacks, including 12.5M from the applicant's site. That's pro-forma so you don't encroach on the maximal opportunity your neighbour would otherwise have.

Metrolinx is under no obligation to plan its its site to maximize this applicant, and may indeed have other ideas.
Screen Shot 2023-09-07 at 12.47.42 PM.png


Also a14 m height limit for the podium seems counterintuitive if it results in losing commercial floor area within the podium, especially when the mid-rise guidelines allow for 80% of the width of the ROW (27M x 80% = 21.6M). The height limit may make sense for the rest of Danforth but not for the intensification node around the transfer stantion which is perfect for office use.
 

Good catch, I agree that's intriguing. Maybe the City would like a tower on top of Pape Station?

Also a14 m height limit for the podium seems counterintuitive if it results in losing commercial floor area within the podium, especially when the mid-rise guidelines allow for 80% of the width of the ROW (27M x 80% = 21.6M). The height limit may make sense for the rest of Danforth but not for the intensification node around the transfer stantion which is perfect for office use.

14M allows for a 4-storey streetwall assuming some extra height on floors one and two. It would be pretty close to what's there now.

Like many people I have a visceral dislike for really tall street walls, in general, I want to see them held to about 4s everywhere. There's room for exceptions on roads like University and Spadina; but it's when you cross the 4s boundary that you start encountering issues w/wind.
 
Is there a specific reference to the north property line?



Metrolinx does have the lands to the east, but not the whole block, so they to will have to contend with 12.5M setbacks, including 12.5M from the applicant's site. That's pro-forma so you don't encroach on the maximal opportunity your neighbour would otherwise have.

Metrolinx is under no obligation to plan its its site to maximize this applicant, and may indeed have other ideas.

I discussed that two-tower idea on the Mx lands on the previous page:


I thought Metrolinx already had the entire block. Pretty sure they do, except for the corner where this proposal is.
 
I thought Metrolinx already had the entire block. Pretty sure they do, except for the corner where this proposal is.

You are correct, I had to do some digging on this.....but so far I've confirmed they have everything on Danforth to the corner at Eton (710)

Metrolinx are secretive buggers, we all know that.......but wow, they've had the property owners and tenants singing NDAs to keep the agreements quiet.

What the @#$# is that?

Expropriation, historically, involved taking out ads in the local papers indicating that you were doing so. It's supposed to be transparent and in the open.

It's unclear to me, as yet, what they are taking on Lipton, but I assume it's a good chunk of what's there.

There's no info yet on what the Transit-Oriented-Community proposal will be here, but there is one coming.
 
You are correct, I had to do some digging on this.....but so far I've confirmed they have everything on Danforth to the corner at Eton (710)

Metrolinx are secretive buggers, we all know that.......but wow, they've had the property owners and tenants singing NDAs to keep the agreements quiet.

What the @#$# is that?

Expropriation, historically, involved taking out ads in the local papers indicating that you were doing so. It's supposed to be transparent and in the open.

It's unclear to me, as yet, what they are taking on Lipton, but I assume it's a good chunk of what's there.

There's no info yet on what the Transit-Oriented-Community proposal will be here, but there is one coming.

Yeah, Metrolinx is acting like I would expect a gov't body under the current gov't to act like. Horrible and shocking. Ppl have been treated really bad. I understand infrastructure is important, but that doesn't give the gov't any excuse or right to simply strong arm average ppl.

I believe all of Lipton up to Eaton, including the house on Eaton (the detached one at the corner of the parking lot), have gone to Metrolinx. Very very secretive. Have they even given a tentative start date for work at Pape, Cosburn?
 

Back
Top