Church St condo deal takes residents by surprise
TORONTO NEWS / Wong-Tam calls for more community consultation
Kyle Mooney / Toronto / Thursday, June 03, 2010
Share |

The 25-storey condo development slated for the corner of Church and Gloucester streets is sparking fury among village residents and politicians.

Kristyn Wong-Tam, Ward 27 city council candidate, says the “disturbing” and “completely irrational” proposal points to a need for more community consultation in development matters.

“One of the most pressing issues in Ward 27 is the constant pressure of reckless development and how it threatens our local neighbourhood,” wrote Wong-Tam in a media release.

Wong-Tam is “concerned about the lack of consultation regarding the demolition application” and condemns property owners’ “blatant disregard for heritage preservation.”

In April 2009, the City of Toronto Planning Division submitted a request to the Toronto Preservation Board to have the properties at 67 and 69 Gloucester St, and 584, 592 and 596 Church St, listed on the city’s Inventory of Heritage Properties.

596 Church St, which is set to be demolished, was listed as a heritage property in October. But it wasn’t so much the developers’ disregard for heritage properties that rankles Wong-Tam as the complete absence of community consultation prior to the proposal’s approval.

Wong-Tam says the general sentiment among village residents is one of “alarm,” adding that few residents of the Church-Gloucester block were aware of the project.

“A gentleman that had lived there for 30 years said he had never heard anything about it,” says Wong-Tam.

Wong-Tam says she is committed to “sustainable, inclusive and beautiful development.”

“It’s not about being anti-development; it’s about responsible and respectable development, one that is led with community consultation,” she says.

Wong-Tam proposes a “holistic approach” to urban development that honours community engagement.

“They could have had community meetings; there’s nothing stopping council from that,” says Wong-Tam, “but there were no community meetings that I know of.”

A date for demolition has yet to be determined.


Share |


Reader Comments


 
build it!
I was delighted to see that proposed condo development at Church and Gloucester. The building that is currently there is a dump. It doesn't even have a proper buzzer system. It also has a reputation for bed bugs. Out with the old, in with the new, I say. Condos do WONDERS for intersections. A condo at that intersection will at least deter some of the riff-raff stumbling northwards from sad Progress Place.
Karl, TO ON
06/03/10 5:04 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
as long as it's done right...
While I don't look forward to the noise and mess that comes with building a condo in my hood, I think it's a good thing. If nobody is going to maintain the older properties in the village and they continue to decay, then it makes sense to tear them down and build something new. Nobody will want to live in the village in 20 years if the only available housing is moldy old rat traps with bad plumbing and no security. Gloucester St is beautiful so I appreciate KW-Tam's effort to engage with the developers. But I'm sure this new tower won't be any uglier than the old and nasty apartment towers that currently stand.
Ryan, Toronto ON
06/03/10 8:23 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Kristyn Wong-Tam
Is Xtra running Kristyn Wong-Tam's campaign? Why would you just focus on her when I'm sure you could get the voices of residents and other candidates in the area's opinion. I don't live in the ward, but from what I can see, Xtra has become part of her campaign strategy. She seems to pop up everywhere. Maybe that's good on her part or maybe she's an opportunist..that's for that ward to decide, but Xtra should have more integrity when reporting issues. rr.
rick, toronto ON
06/03/10 12:40 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Shame on you
To Karl: people with mental health issues have enough stigma to deal with. Your insensitive and uninformed comments are crass. Regarding the new - if developers honour heritage designation then great but a new condo in and of itself is not a bad thing. A little community consultation goes a long way.
Linda, Toronto O
06/03/10 12:41 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Good
I am happy that they are preserving the façade, keeping 7 stories of NEW rental units, and increasing density in the neighbourhood. Toronto has to accommodate millions of more people in the coming decade, and if we say no to development downtown, these people will be forced out into the suburbs and this is wrong on so many levels. If a developer is willing to build responsibly downtown, offering to keep the facades and build new rental units to replace that old crackhouse of a heritage building, I can't see ANY reason to say no. We should be happy that people want to invest in our neighbourhood.
Randy, Toronto Ontario
06/04/10 8:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Re-read the story
I don't think that the story is about creating a dichotomy between preserving old buildings vs. building new ones. I live a block away and had no idea that they were planning to construct new condo towers to replace the apartments. I love my condo, and it probably stands where a previous building was - so I have no problem with development. The point of this story is that the community should at least be aware of major changes and have a chance to participate in a discussion of our environment. That it took a candidate to raise this change shows how much City Hall has been ignoring us.
JL, Toronto Ontario
06/04/10 11:49 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
An advocate for residents
Shouldn't residents always be made aware of pending new development, especially if it affects existing rental units. I think Kristyn Wong-Tam is right and would be a good advocate for residents.
Farzana, Toronto ontario
06/05/10 11:55 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Kristyn if necessary but not necessarily Kristyn
Yes, I know, she's a woman of colour and there are few of those on council. That makes her appealing, for sure, but be careful not to stop there. Identity is little enough reason to vote for someone. Remember Kyle Rae? He was a gay feminist pro-choice anti-right leftist activist, etc. etc., and we bought into his outsider status and lip service like a guarantee he'd stay a community advocate, whatever that meant to us then. How'd that work out? Could we maybe have a few councillors who aren't whores for industrial growth capitalism, though? KWT is a real estate agent and likely to be pro-development, and her idea of adding more bureaucracy to study the impact of city decisions on women and children (not homeless men, people with AIDS, addicts, people with mental health issues, young black men, etc? Do your job - don't hire more social workers to write reports! We already have a social planning council) reeks of p.c. reactionism but that's for another day. It is very easy to say 'more consultation! more consultation!' but that doesn't change the decision making process or the reality that unless an official plan amendment or zoning law needs to change, it's private property and owners can develop it as they see fit. It would be good to have a councillor more pre-disposed to listen to local residents, but it would also be good to know where they will stand when push comes to shove. Are they part of the urban growth machine, or are they not? At the end of the day that's the key question, not whether they're willing to have a series of tea and cookies meeting where people can ramble and rant.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/05/10 4:44 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No growth
Randy says "Toronto has to accommodate millions of more people in the coming decade." It does? I thought we were looking hard at sustainability, not growth. It's time to arrest the growth assumption that lies at the heart of our politics and economic system. We need to start living in a steady state economy, not one predicated on constant growth with the closed system of the biosphere. I don't remember voting for more population growth and urban development, and I don't like the assumption that we have to sit back and accept this.
Alex, toronto on
06/05/10 4:53 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Have you met Kristyn???
Alex, have you met Kristyn before?! She's far from being a typical real estate agent. Read her website or google her. She has done far more for the community than anybody I've known as a community organizer. Secondly, the point of the article is that there hasn't been ANY meetings. I haven't decided if i'm going to vote for her yet but I'm glad somebody in keeping me informed about my neighbourhood.
John, toronto ontario
06/05/10 10:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
'More meetings' is not a policy
John, Yes, I have met Kristyn. She's very nice. I like and respect her. I've watched her for year and drank a lot of coffee at her cafe. She's very involved. But, I'm afraid I have to say to all of that, "big deal". This isn't a popularity contest. In 1991 we voted for Kyle Rae because we liked him. We didn't ask him enough questions. Let's not repeat that mistake. I want to vote for her, but I don't want another pro-development person in the seat. She's going to have to do more than call meetings and keep people informed. Most normal people don't want to spend their lives in dull development meetings. I've been to many; they are poorly attended, with very few exceptions. People want want to vote for someone whom they trust, and be done with it. It is more important that she come clean about her development position(s) than that she's able to use Twitter and say "hey, did you know about xyz?" 'Community consultation' can be a guise to hide behind. Don't fall for it. Make her say where she stands.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/06/10 1:41 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Process is not enough
John says "She has done far more for the community than anybody I've known." Wow. (Sure you haven't made up your mind? You seem like a true believer already.) Anyway, that - community service - is the rationale for a Meritorious Achievement Award at a banquet at the 519 after a $15 dinner of bad spaghetti and worse speeches. That doesn't necessarily mean she'll be a good councillor. In politics, the pace of success is slow and compromise is the currency. Talk to the very active and involved people on the St Nicholas/Bay Corridor about what good all the meetings there did. Nada. (An active neighbourhood association is the best way to stay informed. Church Wellesley lacks that). The councillor just voted how he felt best, and ignored the hours and hours of presentations at community council and planning.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/06/10 1:57 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
you make a good point
alex, i agree that we have to ask her position on development. However, my point is that her position as a real estate agent won't mean she's pro-development or destroying the neighborhood. I wish all the candidates would say something meaningful. All I've been hearing from and seeing is Kristyn. I was hoping more from the other candidates.
john, toronto ontario
06/06/10 11:40 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Growth and Sustainability
Alex, Randy's point about accomodating more people downtown is spot-on. You can be the most powerful urban activist in the world, but you can't stop population growth. In Canada, that growth comes from massive immigration. Since Canadians no longer live on farms and have 10 children, and since our economy relies on continous growth (as well as the need to replace aging baby boomers in the workforce), Toronto will be taking in more immigrants for many years to come. And they need a place to live. We've already torn up and destroyed many square kilometeres of greenspace in the 905 and periphery of Toronto to accomodate all this growth; our focus now should be on creating sustainable urban development. That means more condos downtown and less single family homes in Brampton. Better to build vertically than horizontally. The point is, you cannot stop the influx in population growth unless you stop immigration in Canada. The chance of that happening is very slim, as I mentioned we have an immigration-economy. One other factor to be aware of is the latest trend of young people leaving the suburbs for the city. It used to be the opposite, 'the white flight' it was sometimes called, but now we see college grads being lured into the city instead of away from it. So again, we have to accept that there will be continuous population growth in the city, and Randy is correct that we have to find room for everyone.
Ryan, Toronto ON
06/06/10 11:59 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No growth
You CAN stop population growth. It's been done. It should be done. This "throw up our hands" approach is weak and defeatist. And let's not forget that no species' exponential population growth comes without a corrective. We can get ahead of the plunge - or we can simply run out of resources. It is the GROWTH economy that depends on population growth, and that's the obstacle we have to overcome, this idea that the economy must continue to grow. As far as the economics of intensification, we have miles of subway line - especially Bloor - above which there is little intensification. It doesn't all have to happen within 20 block radius of Yonge and Bloor. We also need to remember that these dense urban forms also require a hinterland - the surrounding area will continue to be built over to supply us. Just because you concentrate the population in a central area doesn't stop demands for resources from the hinterland. You are quite wrong about the condos/Brampton idea. People are pulled in and released - downtown condos are a temporary 'sponge' which then releases growing families to outlying areas. I reject your central hypothesis, this assumption that economic growth is necessary and natural - check out the latest in ecological economics and perhaps you can at least take off the blinders we've all been implanted with. The growth economy has only been a specific policy goal since after World War II. Who benefit from a growth economy? That is the question to ask.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/06/10 4:17 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
part 2
Alex, you still didn't address the immigration question. How can we curb population growth without also drastically cutting off the number of immigrants to Canada? We receive approx 250,000 immigrants each year, and something like 60% or more settle in Toronto. What we have at work is an immigration economy that supports an expansive service economy, a growth economy. Changing the entire economic structure of the country is not just radical, it's unwise. If you disagree with me that economic growth is necessary, then just look at the relationship between unemployment and growth. Slow growth = lost jobs. Our welfare state as it is can barely sustain 8% unemployment, let alone 10% and higher. Montreal is a good example, when economic growth plummets, unemployment and urban decay intensifies. Toronto would probably collapse if it experienced what Montreal experienced in the 70s. Who benefits from a growth economy? Well Canada certainly has, and Toronto became an economic giant while other northern cities rusted away. I agree with you that condos can act as sponges for young couples who eventually have kids and go into the suburbs, but keep in mind family size is dwindling too. As well, many baby boomers who raised their families in the suburbs will soon sell their homes and move into condos after the kids move out (usually to the city), making room for those who leave the city. This will neutralize development of the hinterland. Cities that are transient can still be sustainable. Moreover, the lack of available housing in the inner city forces traditionally residential neighbourhoods (like much of the gay village) to become over-crowded and over-priced. The old dinosaur apartment towers (like 100 Wellesley and Vaseline tower) will become less desirable to live and harder to maintain the more they age. New towers have more natural light, better heating, cooling, and air filtration, and are more sustainable. I don't suggest we build a douzen, but a couple won't hurt.
Ryan, Toronto ON
06/06/10 6:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
No growth
We accept only refugees - a legal and moral obligation - and stop accepting economic migrants, which tends to drain the brightest minds such as doctors from regions of the world that desperately need them. Look at three examples of fantastic economic growth: Ground zero of the capitalist revolution in 19th century England. Russia after the wall fell. And the US, through the last two centuries. Despite all three of these being situated in eras/areas of explosive economic growth, there was (and is) tremendous poverty and people fleeing. Something like 83% of the wealth produced by economic growth goes to already wealthy. Slow growth needn't mean lost jobs, although admittedly it would take great changes to the existing system to provide full employment in a no-growth or slow growth economy. Economic growth in an accumulative (not distributive) system never leads to the elimination of poverty. That's not the goal of industrial growth capitalism. I realize what I'm saying is anathema and I certainly don't have all the answers, but I really want us to debate the 'givens' here - that we MUST grow to serve the economy. The economy is our creation and must serve us, not the other way around. I would argue that keeping the economic system as is is unwise. The economy is a totally owned subsidiary of the environment, and any system predicated on constant growth is doomed to collapse. Google Herman Daly, Peter Victor, Robert Costanza and others. Resources are peaking. We can't solve the world's overpopulation through immigration. The population of the world grows by a quarter of a million a day. That's not births, that's births minus deaths! That's what we take in one year by your numbers. If we keep building it, they'll keep coming. There will be 9 billion by 2050. We are a large country but much of it is uninhabitable and the arable land is less than 1% of our surface area. Growth of any population cannot be sustained over the long haul.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/06/10 7:27 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Wong-Tam is progressive
Wong-Tam is a supporter of QuAIA, so she has my vote!
Progressive, Toronto Ontario
06/08/10 12:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
July 29 Consulation Meeting Videos Available
Video clips of the consultation meeting between the Church and Wellesley Residents Association and the developers are available at http://kristynwongtam.ca/519-community-meeting/
Joeseph, Toronto Ontario
08/04/10 3:54 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.