Garment District Neighbourhood Association
  • HOME
  • ABOUT
  • DEVELOPMENT
    • Ace Hotel
    • King Portland
    • Manga Hotel
    • Waterworks
    • Woodsworth
    • 445 Adelaide
    • 544 King
    • 149 Bathurst
    • 8-18 Camden
    • 39-47 Camden
    • 580 King
    • 590 King
    • 123 Portland
    • 135 Portland
    • 450 Richmond
    • 457 Richmond
    • 520 Richmond
    • 543 Richmond
    • 96 Spadina
    • Nearby >
      • King Toronto
      • The Well
      • 64-86 Bathurst
      • 164 Bathurst
      • 415 King
      • 663 King
      • 241 Richmond
      • 464 Queen
      • 101 Spadina
      • 147 Spadina
      • 424 Wellington
  • INITIATIVES
    • ONTARIO LINE
    • ST ANDREWS PLAYGROUND
    • YMCA
    • CITY PLANNING
  • RESOURCES
    • LINKS
    • HOW TO

Looks familiar

7/18/2018

0 Comments

 
The floor plans look familiar ... but the prices sure don't!
$1100 to $1200 per square foot; $1500 psf for the penthouses. 
FLOOR PLANS
PRICING
0 Comments

The "James" is no longer

6/26/2018

0 Comments

 
Now it is: 
Picture
It certainly doesn't look all that different.  But there are no south facing balconies on the upper levels.  And there appear to be 17 storeys ... despite the fact that early marketing material still says 18.
Picture
Picture
0 Comments

Now the Judgement ...

4/1/2018

0 Comments

 
The OMB decision for PL160081 is dated March 21, 2018.  It is a 34-page report, accessible here.  The OMB Member found for the appellant with some minor amendments:
  1. Reduction to the number of storeys from 18 to 17
  2. Removal of balconies on the south side of the building from levels 13 to 16

Generally speaking there were four arguments against this development. 

The City challenged its height, arguing that a transition downwards in height is expected from Spadina westward into the interior of the neighbourhood.  The Member felt that “the Official Plan does not require the immediacy of regimented transition downwards or upwards to what is adjacent, or nearby, to a proposed development but rather, requires transition that achieves the broader planning and design objectives of the Official Plan”.  With that understanding, the Member recommended a reduction in height from 18 to 17 stories … a height equal to but not greater than that of the Fabrik condominium.

Read More
0 Comments

All Over but the Judgement

6/15/2017

2 Comments

 
This OMB Hearing, reference PL160081, started at 10AM on May 29, 2017, chaired by David Lanthier.
Parties were:
  • The Appellant, L. Richmond Corp. (Brad Lamb) represented by Kim Kovar
  • The City represented by Jessica Braun and Alexander Suriano
  • The GDNA represented by Max Allen
Witnesses called:
  • Peter Clewes, Architect; Terry Wallace from LEA Consulting; and Peter Smith from Bousfields for the Appellant
  • Kirk Hatcher, Planner; and Rong Yu, Urban Designer, for the City
  • Valerie Eggertson and Ann Marie Strapp for the GDNA
​The Appellant’s case, with 3 long days of witness testimony and cross-examination, was that the building is NOT too high (after all there are others just as high or almost just as high in the King Spadina West Precinct); that the setbacks and blank walls are just fine (after all there are other buildings with similar setbacks and blank walls); that three residential parking spots are sufficient (after all there are other buildings with reduced parking and – a bonus – they can make available, at market rent, 40 parking spaces at the Brant Park condominium less than 300 metres away); that the site can accommodate PRIVATE garbage pickup even though too small for City collection (after all many other downtown condominiums subject their residents to this extra burden).
The City (for 1.5 days) had a simple message … the site is too small.  ​This fact is responsible for the developer’s inability to provide parking and G-type loading facilities for City garbage service; for the “tower” and “canyon” sensation resulting from the proposed height and setbacks.  The City however was satisfied with the off-site 40 parking spots.  City witness statements and the closing arguments accused the Appellant of “cherry picking” examples of variances from a variety of other developments and rolling them all into this one particular proposal.  The Appellant, in response to the City’s setback arguments, offered this "concession": to remove south facing balconies on the top floors of the building.  
Picture
Packing it up ... City team L to R: Alexander, Jessica and Kirk
The GDNA (for less than half a day total) argued that the site, being mid-block and fronted by a bike lane, afforded no place for passenger and delivery vehicles to stop.  On the opening day of the hearing, the GDNA learned that the Appellant was prepared to convert one of the three resident parking spots into a “short term delivery parking” space at the rear of the building off Rush Lane (aka Graffiti Alley) … another “concession”.  The GDNA countered that, although that might satisfy service/trade vehicles, passenger and delivery vehicles (driven by GPS coordinates of a known address) would have no knowledge that this rear entrance or parking space even existed.  
Picture

​The GDNA suggested that a drive-through on the ground floor of the building running from Richmond to Rush Lane would solve this issue.  Neither the Appellant (that would destroy the esthetics of the façade!) nor the City (that would require a curb cut across bike lane and sidewalk!) liked the idea but the GDNA could see no other option … and no other option was suggested.
Picture

​A second GDNA issue
related to the inadequacy of community services and facilities in the vicinity of the James development.  Generally in response to the Bousfields report claiming sufficiency of such, Ann Marie Strapp investigated then compiled REALISTIC and CURRENT statistics for the area that refuted those in the report.  Even the Appellant’s lawyer complimented Ann Marie on her efforts and output, which can be accessed below.  
The Appellant is not bound to pay Section 37 funds due to the small size of its site.  However, it has offered a third "concession": a voluntary donation of $300,000 to be applied to deficiencies of this ilk.

​After the closing arguments on day six of the hearing, the Chair departed to write his report which can take weeks or months.  There was no indication as to which way the judgement would fall so we are in “wait and see” mode.

Documentation used throughout the hearing (measured in forests, not just trees) is now in the public domain.  We post here a very small portion:
  • Argument of Valerie Eggertson concerning accommodation for passenger and delivery vehicles
  • Capacity Assessment of Community Services by Ann Marie Strapp
  • Appendices and Supporting Tables for Assessment of Community Services by Ann Marie Strapp
  • Closing arguments for the GDNA as presented by Max Allen​
2 Comments

Ready for the OMB

5/25/2017

0 Comments

 
The GDNA has "party" status at a 2-week OMB hearing starting May 29, contesting a condo development at 452 Richmond West, on the basis that the proposal does not make any allowance for bike lane activity at its front door.  

On such a small mid-block site, with no lay-by, with no parking across the busy and fast-paced street and with Rush Lane (Graffiti Alley) at the rear of the building, the GDNA asks the questions:

     - Where are taxis, Uber vehicles, Wheel-Trans and personal friends supposed to pick up or drop off passengers? 
     - Where do vehicles servicing today’s purchasing practices (Canada Post, UPS, pizza delivery, Grocery Gateway, etc.), fuelled by the growing trend towards online shopping, stop for the 5 to 10 minutes it takes to complete a delivery? 
     - Where do trade (Bell Canada, HVAC providers, elevator maintenance) vehicles park while they take minutes if not hours to provide service to a building? 
A building developed before the bike lanes were implemented can be forgiven for complaining that, because of the new bike lanes, Wheel-Trans carriers cannot access their site, that stopped vehicles blocking traffic lanes are causing horn honking and traffic jams, and that residents risk life and limb entering or exiting their taxis. 

But why should investors who build new buildings on bike lanes perpetuate these negative conditions? The Association’s position is that interactions between a new building and the vehicles that service it should not be externalized to the public realm, but should be internalized to the building site itself.
0 Comments

Request for Direction Report dated May 25, 2016

12/24/2016

0 Comments

 
For our records ... the City Planner documents for Community Council the reasons for opposing this development at the OMB.
452 – 458 Richmond Street West - Zoning Amendment Application - Request for Direction Report
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-93522.pdf
0 Comments

OMB hearing for the "James" has been rescheduled to May 29, 2017

8/7/2016

0 Comments

 
The GDNA, granted "party status", appeared on July 19th for a 10am start to the 4-day OMB hearing related to the "James" development at 452 Richmond Street West.
However, at the request of lawyers for the City and Brad Lamb, the hearing was rescheduled to May 29, 2017 for a duration of two full weeks ... 10 days, not just 4 ... This to accommodate the testimony and cross-examination of eight expert witnesses (four for the City, three for Brad Lamb's team and one for the GDNA).
​There will obviously be little in the way of updates for the next 9 months ... certainly nothing to suggest that anything will be "coming soon".​
Picture
0 Comments

The GDNA takes a position

4/10/2016

0 Comments

 
As the GDNA plans our objection to the Brad Lamb development at 452 Richmond Street West, we reference observations expressed by the City’s Community Planning office, summarized here: ​

  • Built Form
​The proposed height of 18 storeys and 61.1 metres is too tall for the subject site.  Instead the height should be no taller than 11 storeys based on the current floor to ceiling heights.
Required setbacks for taller elements of the building are minimal to non-existent.
The west side of the development extends to the property line and blocks the east-facing windows at 460 Richmond Street West.
  • Unit Breakdown
This proposal contains 98 percent studio and one-bedroom units, whereas the expectation is that 10 percent of all development in King-Spadina be in the form of three-bedroom units to encourage families to live in the community.
  • Amenity Space
Proposed interior and exterior amenity space is less than half the current requirement.
  • Parking and Loading
Use of Rush Lane (Graffiti Alley) for off-site loading cannot be supported.
54 parking spaces are required and only 4 are proposed.
Picture

The GDNA strongly supports the observations concerning Built Form.  However, we feel that objections from the standpoint of Parking and Loading are terribly understated … and issues with traffic are given no mention at all.  As a result we can see that input from the GDNA is imperative at the OMB.
​

If you are interested in joining our team with regards to this development proposal, please contact us at gdnatoronto@gmail.com so we can include you in our plans.
0 Comments

Off to the OMB

3/2/2016

0 Comments

 
Developers at the James have filed an application to the Ontario Municipal Board.  Attached is a copy of the official notice for the hearing date - July 19, 2016.  City Planning staff have yet to write a report detailing their position.  Hopefully:
1) the Planners' report mirrors our own concerns (stated in an earlier post) and
2) there will be an "official" public meeting (as the earlier meeting was only a pre-application meeting) at which our concerns can be tabled.

To follow progress of the James/OMB process, take the following link and input case # PL160081:
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/english/eStatus/eStatus.html 

If you are interested in getting involved with this particular development at the OMB, heed advice given by the Grange Community Association or the Barrister and Solicitor, William H. Roberts​_ or the OMB website itself.  The GDNA is interested in hearing about your interest(s) or concern(s); so please email us so that we can integrate your opinions with our own.
2016-02-18_-_452-458_richmond_-_notice_of_omb_hearding_date.pdf
File Size: 106 kb
File Type: pdf
Download File

0 Comments

Keeping an Eye on the James Toronto Development

10/9/2015

0 Comments

 
An official application was made on September 16th for the development of an 18 storey condominium on the site of 452 Richmond Street West.
Hemmed in by a low-rise building on the west, a parking lot on the east, and Graffiti Alley on the north, the proposed building shoots skyward as depicted in this gallery page of marketing material.
On September 9, 2015 a pre-application meeting was held with community residents. Criticism was voiced concerning a number of aspects related to the proposed design:
  • the proposed height of the building
  • the "dead" appearance of solid brick walls on the eastern and western exposures
  • the small perimeter base making underground parking impossible and servicing at grade impractical, thereby forcing the building to "externalize" solutions to its deficiencies
  • the lack of options for picking up and dropping off passengers (Wheel-Trans, taxis, etc) given that a busy bicycle lane and heavy traffic exist on Richmond Street ... exacerbated by a bend in the road just west of Spadina
  • vehicular accessibility to the site during and after construction ... pinching traffic on Richmond and disrupting the bike path ... access to the back of the building in Graffiti Alley (for construction vehicles, for the available 3 parking spots, for moving vans, for garbage trucks) is tight and possible only from Spadina given that McDougall Lane is extremely narrow ... heavy reliance on this single point of vehicular access will disrupt the enjoyment of Graffiti Alley as a service and/or pedestrian route
  • a potential for intensifying the existing wind tunnel along Richmond
The GDNA will be keeping an eye on future activity related to this application.
Picture
Today
Picture
Proposed

Community residents are encouraged to submit comments to the City Planner assigned to this development (link to input form).
To receive updates on this development as posted in this blog, use the RSS feed link on the sidebar or follow us on Facebook or Twitter.
0 Comments

    Archives

    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    June 2017
    May 2017
    December 2016
    August 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    October 2015

    Picture
    No longer available

Location

Contact Us