HousingNowTO
Senior Member
New Updated City Planning Sign (2024)…
Previous City Planning Sign (2020) for comparison…
Previous City Planning Sign (2020) for comparison…
Last edited by a moderator:
Toronto 985 Woodbine | 121.5m | 35s | Choice Properties | superkül
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
Northern Light
Superstar
A column in the local community newspaper (Beach Metro News) is more than a little NIMBY here. I don't throw that word around as much as some others here...........but if you read the piece you'll understand why I do here.
beachmetro.com
Aside from clearly disliking the height and the architecture of the tower, and getting a few facts wrong along the way..............
The opinion piece has some major digressions/tirades that are very curious, essentially the author comes out in favour of a public builder here, more or less (I'm paraphrasing) because REITS/developers are evil. LOL
I don't know what @ProjectEnd ever did to this fellow..... LOL
I will say..........he does manage the odd good point, buried under a deluge of lesser ones.......
I don't know why you don't arrive at a public meeting like this, knowing the flack you're going to take, and that your strategy of 'selling' will be based in part on the need for affordable, rental housing, without at least offering a handful of units, even if you have to as asterisk beside them and say 'subject to acceptance by the City as a Community Benefit'
Let's be honest, they were going to take it on the chin over the height here regardless........but coming in w/something tangible for the community would have seemed wise.
That said, the author's polemic is rather a bit much and not particularly coherent as these things go.
In My Opinion: Private profits, rental housing and the ‘monolithic’ proposal for Woodbine and Danforth – Beach Metro Community News
By ADAM SMITH In the public consultation about 985 Woodbine Ave. (at the northeast corner of Danforth Avenue), Andre D’Elia, architect from Superkul, said
beachmetro.com
Aside from clearly disliking the height and the architecture of the tower, and getting a few facts wrong along the way..............
The opinion piece has some major digressions/tirades that are very curious, essentially the author comes out in favour of a public builder here, more or less (I'm paraphrasing) because REITS/developers are evil. LOL
I don't know what @ProjectEnd ever did to this fellow..... LOL
I will say..........he does manage the odd good point, buried under a deluge of lesser ones.......
I don't know why you don't arrive at a public meeting like this, knowing the flack you're going to take, and that your strategy of 'selling' will be based in part on the need for affordable, rental housing, without at least offering a handful of units, even if you have to as asterisk beside them and say 'subject to acceptance by the City as a Community Benefit'
Let's be honest, they were going to take it on the chin over the height here regardless........but coming in w/something tangible for the community would have seemed wise.
That said, the author's polemic is rather a bit much and not particularly coherent as these things go.
FrankNF
New Member
A column in the local community newspaper (Beach Metro News) is more than a little NIMBY here. I don't throw that word around as much as some others here...........but if you read the piece you'll understand why I do here.
In My Opinion: Private profits, rental housing and the ‘monolithic’ proposal for Woodbine and Danforth – Beach Metro Community News
By ADAM SMITH In the public consultation about 985 Woodbine Ave. (at the northeast corner of Danforth Avenue), Andre D’Elia, architect from Superkul, said
Aside from clearly disliking the height and the architecture of the tower, and getting a few facts wrong along the way..............
The opinion piece has some major digressions/tirades that are very curious, essentially the author comes out in favour of a public builder here, more or less (I'm paraphrasing) because REITS/developers are evil. LOL
I don't know what @ProjectEnd ever did to this fellow..... LOL
I will say..........he does manage the odd good point, buried under a deluge of lesser ones.......
View attachment 572085
I don't know why you don't arrive at a public meeting like this, knowing the flack you're going to take, and that your strategy of 'selling' will be based in part on the need for affordable, rental housing, without at least offering a handful of units, even if you have to as asterisk beside them and say 'subject to acceptance by the City as a Community Benefit'
Lets be honest, they were going to take it on the chin over the height here regardless........but coming in w/something tangible for the community would have seemed wise.
That said, the author's polemic is rather a bit much and not particularly coherent as these things go.
Maybe it's because this is just terribly written and I don't get the point, but is Adam Smith (interesting name for someone making this anti-market argument, btw) suggesting that it'd be better for renters if this had remained condo? Also, there's bad landlords out there, so let's not build purpose-built rentals? Really?!
BTW, it's not that I think that the market will solve everything, but surely only relying on public development to make up the dearth of rental inventory is pie in the sky at best.
Northern Light
Superstar
That is definitely a large part of it. It's 3 or 4 different diatribes stitched together loosely by a suspect narrative.
I have no issue with advocating for public building, but as you note, that will never be the complete story (or close); and even if it were, this site is privately owned, certainly the City could put it an offer for it...... but I doubt any price Choice would sell it at would make any sense.
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
For context, Adam Smith is a "Green Anti-Capitalist" who regularly runs in local elections in Beaches East-York... from his 2022 Councillor Election platform -A column in the local community newspaper (Beach Metro News) is more than a little NIMBY here. I don't throw that word around as much as some others here...........but if you read the piece you'll understand why I do here.
In My Opinion: Private profits, rental housing and the ‘monolithic’ proposal for Woodbine and Danforth – Beach Metro Community News
By ADAM SMITH In the public consultation about 985 Woodbine Ave. (at the northeast corner of Danforth Avenue), Andre D’Elia, architect from Superkul, said
Aside from clearly disliking the height and the architecture of the tower, and getting a few facts wrong along the way..............
The opinion piece has some major digressions/tirades that are very curious, essentially the author comes out in favour of a public builder here, more or less (I'm paraphrasing) because REITS/developers are evil. LOL
I don't know what @ProjectEnd ever did to this fellow..... LOL
I will say..........he does manage the odd good point, buried under a deluge of lesser ones.......
View attachment 572085
I don't know why you don't arrive at a public meeting like this, knowing the flack you're going to take, and that your strategy of 'selling' will be based in part on the need for affordable, rental housing, without at least offering a handful of units, even if you have to as asterisk beside them and say 'subject to acceptance by the City as a Community Benefit'
Let's be honest, they were going to take it on the chin over the height here regardless........but coming in w/something tangible for the community would have seemed wise.
That said, the author's polemic is rather a bit much and not particularly coherent as these things go.
"Our planet has finite resources, yet we live in an economic system that requires infinite exponential growth or it collapses, and we keep adhering to this counter-intuitive system despite the fact it’s killing the planet. We must transition into a sustainable circular economy to secure our future, we cannot continue growing and consuming as we do. We don’t just need a change in politicians or policy, we need systems change."
Toronto Votes 2022: Ward 19 Beaches-East York Councillor candidate Adam Smith profile – Beach Metro Community News
ADAM SMITH - Ward 19 Beaches-East York candidate for Councillor I love our ward, from our beautiful beaches to our numerous ravines and parks. We’ve got
beachmetro.com
Northern Light
Superstar
For context, Adam Smith is a "Green Anti-Capitalist" who regularly runs in local elections in Beaches East-York... from his 2022 Councillor Election platform -
"Our planet has finite resources, yet we live in an economic system that requires infinite exponential growth or it collapses, and we keep adhering to this counter-intuitive system despite the fact it’s killing the planet. We must transition into a sustainable circular economy to secure our future, we cannot continue growing and consuming as we do. We don’t just need a change in politicians or policy, we need systems change."
Toronto Votes 2022: Ward 19 Beaches-East York Councillor candidate Adam Smith profile – Beach Metro Community News
ADAM SMITH - Ward 19 Beaches-East York candidate for Councillor I love our ward, from our beautiful beaches to our numerous ravines and parks. We’ve got
Funny that, there's a gist to that statement above that I want to agree with.......... I've said that I don't feel like natural contraction of the global population would be a bad thing; and I clearly prize a healthy environment.
But he seems unable to string his idea(s) together into a coherent narrative any sane person would buy.
He apparently also created his own renderings of the proposal:
PL1
Active Member
*That's* why it looked so bad! I saw this posted in my local FB group, saw who posted it, and instantly gave it reduced credence
flonicky
Senior Member
Application Details
www.toronto.ca
Resubmission here with both programming changes and stat changes.
Firstly, the programming & design changes:
Stat changes:
Updated renderings:
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
First off, before I comment, we need to hear from @UrbanAffair he knows the rules, angry faces warrant explanations! 
****
My comments:
This time we got the Affordable Units promise, @HousingNowTO will wish to make note.
The theater is a curious edition - I'm assuming this is the theatre currently based across the street (west side of Woodbine).
Grocery store remains.
I'm glad we got rid of the goofy looking offsets from the last rendition.
That said, I'm still confused about the lack of evident planning with the TTC. I don't discern any enlargement of the bus plantform, even though the TTC has that in their 15-year capital plan, and I would imagine it would require at least a sliver of Choice's land holding along Strathmore.
I also don't see any allowance for enlarging the TTC's concourse level, even though Woodbine station has severe challenges with crowding. I'm disappointed by that, and the failure to achieve those gains for the TTC with 'air right's over the station which would allow the same density, but achieved a bit more gently, and/or a modest increase in density at comparable heights/setbacks.
I do feel at though the Danforth frontage might benefit from a very small additional setback at the 10th floor or thereabouts, (where the setback is on the Woodbine frontage further north. Just tucking in the lip by 1.5M on the Danforth side and on Woodbine further south would really create the illusion of a more human scale. This could be offset, as I've noted elsewhere.
****
My comments:
This time we got the Affordable Units promise, @HousingNowTO will wish to make note.
The theater is a curious edition - I'm assuming this is the theatre currently based across the street (west side of Woodbine).
Grocery store remains.
I'm glad we got rid of the goofy looking offsets from the last rendition.
That said, I'm still confused about the lack of evident planning with the TTC. I don't discern any enlargement of the bus plantform, even though the TTC has that in their 15-year capital plan, and I would imagine it would require at least a sliver of Choice's land holding along Strathmore.
I also don't see any allowance for enlarging the TTC's concourse level, even though Woodbine station has severe challenges with crowding. I'm disappointed by that, and the failure to achieve those gains for the TTC with 'air right's over the station which would allow the same density, but achieved a bit more gently, and/or a modest increase in density at comparable heights/setbacks.
I do feel at though the Danforth frontage might benefit from a very small additional setback at the 10th floor or thereabouts, (where the setback is on the Woodbine frontage further north. Just tucking in the lip by 1.5M on the Danforth side and on Woodbine further south would really create the illusion of a more human scale. This could be offset, as I've noted elsewhere.
Last edited:
whatever
Senior Member
The added childcare space is nice given the loss of the Workaround. It'd be great if they could somehow add the coworking thing to it.
The theater makes sense. I could see it being well used.
Extra space along Woodbine is good. The POPS sounds kinda useless. Maybe that's a protection for an eventual TTC expansion?
The massing could definitely be broken up better. We know better than to build slabs like that
The theater makes sense. I could see it being well used.
Extra space along Woodbine is good. The POPS sounds kinda useless. Maybe that's a protection for an eventual TTC expansion?
The massing could definitely be broken up better. We know better than to build slabs like that
FrankNF
New Member
I read the text under 'proposed units' above as saying that the 606 includes those 14 units (thus a gain of 592 units). Am I reading that wrong?
I remember it being brought up as a way to increase the community space in the online consultation earlier this year. Bradford seemed to be in favour of it, if I remember it correctly.
Northern Light
Superstar
@Paclo The above conclusion is supported by the Planning Rationale Report - All-In at 606 units (replacement units inclusive)
This stems from an ambiguity at the city level of if rental-replacement units are counted as "proposed" units. UT considers on-site rental replacement units in the total number of proposed units.
The Project Data Sheet in this case implies that they are not
And within the Planning Rationale there are differing numbers mentioned
Due to the ambiguity and possible typos in the submission documents, I have reached out to the planner on file for clarification and will update the thread with the correct info.