Anger over 81 Wellesley condo plan
NEIGHBOURHOOD / Proposed 29-storey tower would cast shadows on Church-Wellesley Village
Rob Salerno / Toronto / Friday, October 19, 2012
Share |

A 29-storey tower could soon loom over the Church-Wellesley intersection where the former Wellspring Cancer Centre once stood if developers have their way. However, opposition from community members and Councillor Kristyn Wong-Tam may yet derail their plan.
 
Icarus Developments is planning a 93.6-metre building made of two towers that step up from a six-storey brick podium. The plan calls for retail at ground level and 200 residential units in the tower, including 20 “family-sized” three-bedroom units. It would have 75 parking spots and 200 bike parking spots.
 
The 19th-century building was torn down in January in a move that caught the community by surprise. It was on its way to being listed as a heritage property before the wrecking crew levelled it, but the project manager for the development says the owners had been planning to demolish since they took possession in April 2011.
 
“They were always planning to tear it down,” Kevin Chan says.
 
Community members invited to a Oct 16 consultation on the condo plan were vocal about their opposition to the building.
The new tower proposed by Icarus Developments would replace a 19th-century building torn down in April.
For Paul Farrelly, an active member of the Church-Wellesley Neighbourhood Association, the entire proposal is doomed by the owner’s destruction of the Wellspring building.
 
“The nature of the owner of this property is un-civic,” he says. “It was immoral, un-civic and a blast to the community.”
But the proposal faces several other obstacles. Although Wellesley Street is generally zoned for tall buildings, 81 Wellesley itself is considered part of the low-rise Church Street zone, which has a maximum height of 18 metres.

Additionally, the official plan calls for towers to be set back at least 12.5 metres from the street, which would push the tower right off the site.
 
Another concern is that due to the narrowness of the site, drivers would enter the parking lot from the front of the building, descend to the lot by car elevator, and exit via the building’s rear laneway.
 
As that laneway is frequently occupied by trucks making deliveries to the businesses along the east side of Church Street, there’s concern that the additional traffic would not fit through the lane or would force deliveries to be made along Church itself.
 
Residents in the adjacent buildings are also concerned that the building would block sunlight, given that the podium is being built right to the lot line. However, even if the tower proposal is scrapped, the developer has the right, under current zoning laws, to build a six-storey building right to the lot lines.
 
Councillor Wong-Tam says she “will not be supporting” the proposal and says she does not believe the site is appropriate for a tall building.
 
Icarus has not submitted its proposal to the city formally, but Chan says it will be forthcoming in the next month.
 
In other neighbourhood development news, a contentious proposal to build two 58-storey towers at 501 Yonge St, between Alexander and Maitland, appears to have hit a snag.
 
The design review panel, a committee of architects that evaluate the merit of new buildings on Yonge Street, told the developer and community on Oct 16 that the proposal needs to go through a redesign.
 
Members of the panel said the site is too close to an adjacent building on Maitland to allow two towers to be built, community members report.
 
“I always felt there was too much massing on the site, and I’ve repeatedly asked the developer to bring the density down,” Wong-Tam says.
 
 
  


Share |


Reader Comments


 
Thankfully there is the...
Church-Wellesley Neighbourhood Association! Can someone please, please consider running in the next election against this Wong-Tam disaster? If I recall she blamed the City of Toronto for the demolition of Wellspring? Of course she and her office in no way insisted that all demolition permits in her/our Ward are brought to her attention. No... it was the City of Toronto's fault. Right. But hey it looks like she'll be getting the government owned property for a park so the rich folks can take their dogs to shit at Younge and Wellesley.
Tim, Toronto ON
10/20/12 7:15 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Facts get in your way
Check your facts Tim, Councillor Wong-Tam was working to have the heritage board designate this building when it was put up for sale in order to PROTECT Odette House and the coach house in behind. The demolition permit was approved without her knowledge (she changed all that by the way with a motion which was adapted by Council) and was alerted to the roof being demolished by a resident who texted her. She arrived on site and when they realized they may have a problem with her the crane knocked in the front of the house before 5pm that day. I was there. I saw it. The home was lost. Second, does THE fastest growing residential area in Canada (downtown Toronto) not deserve some green space? Count the parks within a 10 minute walk from all these new towering condos (fourteen of which, in this immediate area, have not even been built yet). I'll do it for you, there are three parks. When greenspaces are gone, they're gone for good and parks are a healthy part of any thriving neighbourhood. Councillor Wong-Tam is one of the most progressive, smart and forward thinking Councillors we have. And it's Yonge Street, not Young Street. Your obviously not from around here.
greg hannah, Toronto ON
10/21/12 6:42 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Condos are good
Historic preservation prioritizes past architects over current ones, and restricts the amount of land which can be used for more productive purposes, increasing the cost of living and commerce. The labour and material cost per square foot decreases as the square footage of a building increases, so building upward should be accomplished by eliminating height and minimum setback restrictions, maximum automobile parking of 0, integration of residential and commercial use of land, decreasing development charges to 0 for infill and increased for low density, basing property taxes on the value of land alone rather than land and building, and eliminating the municipal land transfer tax.
Danny Handelman, Ottawa ON
10/21/12 8:44 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Oh greg, greg, greg, tsk, tsk
" The demolition permit was approved without her knowledge..." Her staff gets paid a great deal of money to be on top of these things. No fact checking on my end required Mr. Apologist. She failed to be on top of it. Pretty simple. Hey, I'm all for parks, but not toilet area's for rich peoples pets. Have you tried to walk on the grass on any park in downtown Toronto lately? Dog shit everywhere, that's it. Disease causing dog shit. These are not parks they are dog toilets masquerading as green space. Let's get real. As to her being progressive. I've noted some rather what I consider to be disturbing support from this "progressive" that I consider to be anti-gay male culture.(postering, lap-dancing and so on) This is not progressive to me. Continue your complicity all you want, but just because you say she's progressive doesn't mean she is. The sky is pink. I want to thank the Church-Wellesley Neighbourhood Association again for their hard work!
Tim, Toronto ON
10/21/12 11:19 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Take a step back, Tim.
KWT has been a good advocate for responsible development so far. She opposes developers' outrageous plans, and was as devastated as the rest of us when Odette House was torn down. The developer took advantage of a loophole that did not even become apparent until after the fact. Blaming KWT and vilifying her real efforts to oppose this project does not help our cause. She is by no means an "apologist" for rampant development. She's advocated hard for a park at 11 Wellesley West, for example. And if you feel strongly that you need a dog-free zone, then by all means write letters, join a community group and get involved! I'm sure KWT would love to have your input. And regarding the posters - there are at least three new poster boards in the village, erected by the BIA and the City. They display all the naked men you could possibly want. It moves our public notices from ineffective display areas (i.e. poles) to places of privilege in our community. Now you can actually see your naked men in all their glory without craning your neck around a pole. As for lap dancing, that's a City-wide bylaw, not locally driven. It's in place primarily to protect the rights of the performers.
George, Toronto Ontario
10/21/12 12:48 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
retort
Tim I've been to dozens of community meetings, most of which were attended by Councillor Wong-Tam and I think she's incredible. If she had any idea Odette House had been issued a demolition permit she would have been right on it. She and her staff cannot have their fingers on everything that happens in her huge Ward. I support the right for an erotic dancer to do lap-dancing, but only if the dancer wishes to do it and actively seeks out clients, so I don't agree with Wong-Tam's stand on this issue but she's only one vote and no one will ever agree with every issue that a City Councillor has to deal with. Besides, there are much more important issues to be addressed in this Ward! Dog dirt in parks can be a problem everywhere, not just downtown but it's not as bad as you make it out to be, I walk through them every day... with my dog. Both she and my previous dog are trained to do #2 on the curb on the road (on one of the many one-way residential streets around here) so that I can pick up 100% of it and dispose of it properly. Most dog owners are very responsible, but some admittedly aren't - especially in the winter once snow falls. I see more puke on the ground from drunk idiots than I do dog dirt in any park. How about all that dirty gum people spit out on the sidewalk, or people who spit on the ground? That's grosser than dog dirt if you ask me. You may have noticed Councillor Wong-Tam's mid-term report card posted here, if not here's the link - http://www.xtra.ca/public/Toronto/Front_centre-12680.aspx
greg hannah, Toronto ON
10/21/12 2:57 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
K Wong-Tam
I don't want to get too off topic but since the subject of lap-dancing was mentioned I thought I would weigh-in. The fact that Wong-Tam does not support lap-dancing is no trivial matter. If laws are enacted to ban private "vip" lap-dancing who do you think will be the first target? It will be Gay males! Just like when that hypocrite Saint Jack Layton campaigned for laws against lap dancing (at the same time he was frequenting rub-and-tug parlors) Male strip clubs were the target of police and law abiding Gay Males were harassed by cops. Gay males need to let Wong-Tam know that they do not support her stance on this issue - that it is unacceptable and that she will never get re-elected in this community. Wong-Tam needs to focus on the things that matter to the gay community instead of focusing on extraneous issues like shark-fin soup, community banks, Israeli "apartheid"
Kevin, Toronto ontario
10/21/12 7:07 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Erotic dancers
If Wong-Tam has formed her opinion on lap-dances then it's from input she has received, that's how she represents her constituents. If you disagree (such as I do) take the time to write her a letter or phone her.
greg hannah, Toronto ON
10/22/12 2:01 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Irony
Xtra was one of Wong-Tam's original supporters when she ran for City Council. Since her election, Xtra has regularly produced propaganda to support her. It is therefore ironic that Wong-Tam supports the BIA's campaign against posters on Church Street for sexually-charged gay male events. It would also be ironic if Wong-Tam ends up voting for restrictions against sexually-charged gay male strip clubs like Flash on Church Street and Remingtons on Yonge Street. So much for Xtra's one-time mission of gay sexual liberation.
Mark, Toronto ON
10/22/12 4:14 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Get a grip
The pole wraps have NOTHING to do with sexually charged images and EVERYTHING to do with tattered, neglected streetscapes. The BIA has installed POSTER BOARDS, paid for out of their own POCKETS! You can see as many naked men as you bloody well please. In fact, they are far more prominent than before. I can't believe the stupidity of this community sometimes.
George, Toronto Ontario
10/22/12 11:46 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Tourism industry
Church and Wellesley gay village is a designated tourist area, known all over the world. Something the local residents seem to forget. They seem to think its their patch and nobody else matters. The Councilor and BIA, should be supported in their efforts to make it an attractive place for out-of-town visitors. Keeping the grunge is remaining a ghetto, beautification will attract more visitors. World Pride is only a year away, lets put our best face forward and clean up the Village, for the world to see.
Michel F. Pare, Toronto ON
10/22/12 1:51 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Futile pole wrapping
The BIA's plan to put "wraps" on utility poles on Church Street in order to prevent people from putting up posters, is futile. It will not achieve the desired outcome of a more tidy-looking street. People will continue to put posters on newspaper boxes, mail boxes, electric utility boxes, street signs on a thin pole, etc. The street will continue to look dirty unless local business owners regularly wash the stains off the sidewalks in front of their business (e.g., stains that occur when someone spills a beverage or food or when a person or animal urinates, etc.) and regularly sweep the dirt, dust and litter that accumulates at street curbs. It’s a dirty street.
Connor, Toronto ON
10/22/12 6:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Outing myself as the texter
I'm outing myself as the resident who sent Kristyn that text on the fateful morning when the owners of 81 Wellesley East moved so quickly to destroy that beautiful heritage property. I write "heritage" with a small "h" because oh-so-curiously, the owners tore the place down before Kristyn's recommendation to make it a capital "H" Heritage property, passed a couple weeks earlier, was able to be acted upon. Suspicious, wouldn't you agree? I'm therefore extremely wary of Icarus Development operating with any kind of good faith. We residents of Church-Wellesley need to be realistic that as a central, downtown Toronto area, a certain amount of vertical development needs to happen. But we also need to be vigilant! If you see something puzzling (such as a building being tore down with no notice!), contact Kristyn's office. Also, as Greg Hannah mentions above (among his many other good comments), take the initiative of submitting your feedback to our City Councillor. My experience with her is that she's always open to hearing opinions.
Gilles Marchildon, Toronto ON
10/22/12 11:28 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Shame is a funny thing...
it sneaks up on one without one really being aware of it (maybe it's the flouride) when one becomes enslaved by shame internalized oppression is only relived by being just like one's oppressor suffering a bottom version of Stockholm Syndrome, and then apologizing for "dirty" gay male sexually charged posters, while seriously "believing" that what obviously anti-gay male power tops say is true. That's fine. Children are children. They don't know any better. To each his own. I still suck cock though. War is peace.
Tim, Toronto Ontario
10/22/12 11:48 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
BIA is no longer gay friendly
Let's face it folks, this deal is going to go through, regardless of what anyone thinks. The BIA is no longer interested in supporting what was once the gay village. All it is looking at now is the increase in commercial revenue that will be coming in with each new condo erected.
Christopher King, Toronto ON
10/23/12 10:14 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Not so simple
Christopher, the BIA has nothing to do with development application approvals. And many members of the BIA would be wise to oppose rampant development: as shiny new towers go up, so do property values, property taxes, and therefore commercial rents. Many independent businesses won't be able to afford rents on Church no matter how many new patrons are living above them.
George, Toronto ON
10/23/12 8:35 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Dog Tolilets on Public Land
Or what Wong-Tam calls "green spaces" http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1278120--growing-up-pets-in-the-city
Tim, Toronto ON
10/26/12 10:30 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Icarus?
Kind of an ironic name for a condo development company, don't you think? Hopefully this tower won't be built to close to the sun. And in turn come crashing down around us all.
D, Toronto ON
10/29/12 2:03 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Cry me a river KWT
Get a life KWT! Stop crying all the time. The city is growing. Don't like it, head to Bolton.
Luke B, Toronto Ontario
11/06/12 12:20 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.