The Leslieviller will always be free to use.
Donations are sincerely appreciated.

Follow activity on The Leslieviller
in your favorite social networks:

Thanks to our advertisers for keeping this site free to use! If you'd like to advertise on The Leslieviller, start with this information.

Development Proposal at 1602-1604 Queen (between Rhodes and Coxwell)

I received a Public Hearing Notice for Committee of Adjustment application. The hearing date is Jun. 1. The proposal include a five-storey mixed use building containing ground floor retail and 20 dwelling units. 20 dwelling units seems a lot for a lot area of approx. 40' x 110'. Plans of the building is not provided with the Notice other than a site plan which doesn't show much. I was told by the City Planning that due to "cut backs", the only way to view the design of the building is by visiting City Hall. Does anyone know about this proposal?

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ara Mamourian on June 15, 2011 at 8:00am

LOL! No Dave we have nothing to do with this project. We'll see how it plays out. The drawing looks good but we won't know how it will truly fit in until we see renderings. We can't really argue the parking issue. People that will end up in these small units will likely not have cars and with a street that is well serviced by transit it is unnecessary.99% of the time buyers and renters of such small units do not require parking. This I know for a fact.

@Kel, I'm not sure how familiar you are with developments these days but bedrooms without windows and smaller floor plans are very common in all new developments. The developer can fit more of them in to the building (and yes, make more money) but it also creates a more affordable unit that will appeal to the first time buyer/renter that would otherwise be priced out of an intense real estate market. Believe it or not Developers get in to the game because they want to actually make a difference in the City, a positive one and make money (a lot of it!) while doing it. Sometimes the greed of a developer and sheer lack of respect for the community shine through and then the community must step forward and do something but in this is just the tip of the iceberg for Queen St east. Look at the building at Queen and Greenwood (the old theatre that is now an apartment) not set back from the street at all there and it interacts just fine with the street.This is too new for me to make a decision yet. I may or may not support it in the end but I would like to know more.

@Dave, we're talking about a 5 story building here, not a skyscraper. Unless the sun starts rising and setting in the South I think the houses will be fine. Sure, it's not ideal to have an apartment in your backyard but hey, if you live near a main street these things are to be expected. I wouldn't worry about value.

Have a great day everyone!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kel JSpace on June 15, 2011 at 8:39am

The sun does happen to rise and set from South, or SE to SW to be exact :-) Time to advise people just N of Queen to start planting tall trees.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ara Mamourian on June 15, 2011 at 8:40am

Ha! Slight correction, in the Spring/Summer the sun sets in the NW!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kel JSpace on June 16, 2011 at 3:59pm

Found out name of the developer: Rivet Development. Anyone familiar with their work? Not too impressed by what's on their web site.

http://rivetdevelopment.com/projects/stjohnslofts.html

My neighbours who attended the Committee of Adjustment are considering to appeal, however, there doesn't seem to be enough voice in the community and the resources are limited to fight the City and the developer.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jackie O'Keefe on June 17, 2011 at 9:28am

Hello All.

I'm new here but thought I'd throw in my two cents. I had a great experience last year when I attended a speech about inner city development that was given by the London England Deputy Mayor. He mentioned something that really stuck with me that wasn't mentioned here. London had tons of development in the downtown core, unfortunately, he said, all of the units were bachelors or one bedrooms which he said, decimated the "familial vibe" of the inner city and forced most families with children to move away from the very core that serves them best. He said that if developers and communities in Toronto don't start paying attn to that slow decimation of the family population downtown then we will have the same problem, a somewhat heartless, "entertainment district", primarily geared towards the twenty somethings that statistically have very little to do with building community. I can't spk for the Deputy Mayor nor do I have any stats myself that these facts are true but it did give me pause around these tiny condo's. I have been a real estate agent for a while now, (third career, lol) and I have seen hundreds of these "bachelors". They are stiflingly tiny and are little more than pit stops on the way to the bars. I believe strongly that there should be a minimum square footage for these units and developers, regardless of their desire to "make a difference" should be held accountable for injecting atleast a minimum amount of soul into these pit stops. When developers start fighting for this, then I'll believe that they have some commitment to building community themselves and that making a killing financially is not the sole purpose of building them.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sayf on June 19, 2011 at 4:52pm

It isn't the height that causes privacy and shadowing concerns, it's the setback at the rear and the angular plane. Development on Queen E backing on to residential space has to have a rear yard setback of 18-20 ft (less if there is an existing rear laneway servicing the lot) at the very least and is subject 45 degree angular plane after a certain height

(10 meters, in most cases).

Planning is extremely strict with this. This development is building up to it's as-of-right height of 5 storeys. 5 storeys is perfect density for Queen E, as demonstrated by 747 Queen E. Retail at grade, residential above.

To ensure obedience of the angular plane and rear yard setbacks is the responsibility of City Planning. As long as this proposal respects the angular plane, I welcome it.

The reason 747 Lofts have 12 units and 1602-1604 is proposing 20 is simply a reality of Toronto's heated condo market.

Units are selling at $500+ per sq. ft. To have 1000 sq.ft units would mean pricing these at $500K+. Which essentially prices the average condo buyer out of the market.

Infill of this size respects and preserves urban fabric. Would you rather a developer assemble the entire block and impose a massive condo on the site instead? With regards to the "not enough parking" argument, purchasers will be aware of this fact and will only buy into the development if they intend on using public transit to get around. Which I applaud.

It's difficult to maintain a 1:1 parking/unit ratio on a building of this size and I'm all for less traffic on Queen E.

As for property devaluation, do you really think prospective home-owners will pay less for properties in the area once a brand new, vibrant infill development takes over a neglected lot?

In agreement with Ari on this one. As a Leslieviller who walks with his family through this stretch practically every weekend, I look forward to developments of this scale. I'm all for conducting the necessary inquiries and investigations to ensure that proposed developments are in keeping with the context of the neighborhood but part of living in a metropolitan city is to adapt to increased density. If every neighborhood opposed density increase beyond existing built-form and Planning enforced this, you'd see massive urban sprawl. Which is precisely what the Official Plan is attempting to curb.

I also find it incredibly insulting to accuse Ari of shilling for Lamb because he doesn't oppose the development.

His posts have been well-argued and politely offered. And Brad wouldn't bother with a lot of this size.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ara Mamourian on June 20, 2011 at 6:45am

@Jackie...the reason they build these small units is because there is a demand for them. I have grown up in apartments and condos my entire life (have only lived in a house for a few years) and am quite used to smaller spaces. If people didn't buy them they simply wouldn't get built. I understand that you may have a preference for a house with a yard of a much larger squarefootage, obviously this is not a development for you. These are great for investors to provide high quality rentals for urban professionals just starting out in their careers or a great crash pad for someone who needs a spot in the city or even someone's first home. My first place was a 400sqft bachelor condo, my dog and I lived a great life there. It allowed me to get in to the property ladder early, gain some equity over a couple years then put that money in to a larger condo and now I would NEVER live in that small space again but it served it purpose years ago and it will continue to do so for others down the road. There is a development downtown called DNA 3 on King West near Liberty Village. The smallest unit there is 248sqft! WOW!!!! Obviously this unit is not ideal for living full time but a great entry level investment and would be perfect as a short term rental property.

As a real estate broker, passionate real estate investor and as a local resident I see lots of value in a project like this. It will provide an entry level unit for a young buyer, a great entry level investment for someone starting their real estate empire or a nice pied a terre for an out of towner looking for a pit stop to the bar when they're in town!

Happy Monday Everyone!!!!

p.s. Thanks @Sayf, don't think Dave was trying to insult me just wanted to make it clear that I wasn't trying to promote a Lamb Dev Corp project. And you're right, we don't do small infill anymore!!!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ara Mamourian on June 20, 2011 at 10:47am

@Jackie, just another quick point. Although this small development we're discussing here doesn't offer larger units most other developers of larger more dense buildings are mandated by the local Councillors to develop a certain number of 2 bed plus den and 3 bedroom floor plans. Now that the Showcase development on Carlaw has modified their 3 bedroom plan by finally adding windows on the south side they are a perfect example of a nice affordable family suite. Also, the King Charlotte development that we're building at King and Spadina offer affordable 3 bedroom units. Not to mention the dense waterfront area where there are tonnes of larger units all under 600K. When building such a small infill project it is not reasonable to expect larger units. Just doesn't make sense there. There are options for families in the core and every single day our office takes calls from suburban families that are dying to get back in to the core with the kids and I'm always able to find them something that works. Things are changing and families are slowly realizing that they can actually live very comfortably in 900-1300sqft of functional space. They do in other wealthy countries, don't see why we can't here.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kel JSpace on June 20, 2011 at 5:05pm

It is nice to see all the different point of views about this development. When it comes to developments, voices of oppositions are just as important, and often more important, if you want sensible developments that respect their surroundings. Neighbourhoods that are more active and critical about developments do not stop developments, but rather encourage better designs.

Sayf, I attached a copy of the C of A agenda so you know some facts about the extent of the variances. Reliefs from the By-law were obtained for both the front and rear 45 degree angular planes (items 4 and 5). Planning doesn't seem to be very strict in this case. 5 storeys is not an "as-of-right" height. Zoning permits 12m (4 storeys) for this location. If you determine the building height for this building base on zoning permitted gross floor area and the building's foot print area, they can only build 3 storeys as-of-right.

I walk by this stretch of Queen every day, and would love to see this area improved. 747 Queen, Queen and Pape, and 1251 Queen are all welcoming developments and good examples of density increases on Queen St E. From what I have seen so far, 1602 Queen is not a well designed building, and measures were not taken to reduce the impact of the increased density and height. Ara seems to know that renderings for the building will be available soon. I will be very interested to see how well this building will fit in its context. Hopefully they won't provide a rendering of a free standing building like other buildings don't exist.

As for the impact of bachelor and one-bedroom units, we can only tell over time when the building is occupied. Being a rental apartment (not always occupied by urban professionals) can have quite a different social dynamic from condo development where units are owner occupied.

Attachments: