Church St peeps to fight condo building slated for Church and Gloucester
TORONTO NEWS / Residents oppose '25-storey black death star'
Allison Martell / Toronto / Monday, June 21, 2010
Share |

“The village in downtown Toronto was once a thriving community however it is in need of some new energy and investment.”

That’s how architects at RAW design are describing a proposed Church St condo that one local resident called a “25-storey black death star.” A Thursday evening meeting at The 519 attracted about 100 people, many of whom live in the 35 low-rise residential units that could be torn down and replaced by a mixed-use high-rise development running from Dundonald to Gloucester along Church, on land owned by a company called Church 18 Holdings Inc. Some of the tenants that could be displaced have lived in their units for upwards of 20 years.

Developers have been meeting with city staff and refining their plans since at least February 2009, though residents were not notified that anything was in the works until a few weeks ago. The current proposal is for a 25-storey tower, including a seven-storey podium.

Fuzion  and Voglie, at the corner of Church and Dundonald, would become part of the development, as would some of the front and side walls at 592 Church and 67 Gloucester. The buildings at 596 Church, 584 Church and 69 Gloucester would be demolished. A number of affected buildings are included in the City’s Inventory of Heritage Properties. The resulting development would contain 35 replacement rental units and 158 condominiums.

(rendering by RAW design)


At the meeting, residents expressed a lot of anger that they had not been consulted earlier and voted to form a new association, tentatively called the Gloucester Mansions Residents’ Association. More meetings are in the works, in preparation for the City’s official public consultations, which will be held in late fall, 2010.

Ward 27 candidate Kristyn Wong-Tam took notes on chart paper at the front of the room, but was not formally introduced, presumably in deference to rules against campaigning on City property outside of official all-candidates meetings. After the meeting, she distributed a press release outside the condemned buildings.

“This is not about being anti-development,” she says. “But we’re dead set against reckless development.”

City planners may well agree. A preliminary report on the rezoning application highlights 23 issues to be resolved, even though a number of changes have evidently been made in response to staff comments over the last year. Planners are concerned, among other things, about a proposal to make Gloucester two-way between Church and the entrance to the new building. They have also highlighted the fact that 13 two-bedroom rental units will be replaced by one-bedroom units. As the relevant planning staff are on vacation, they could not be reached for comment.

One of the meeting organizers was Jeff Myers, best known in the Village for rallying the community after Chris Skinner’s murder last fall. He recently moved into one of the buildings slated for demolition.

“The landlord hummed and hawed about our application for a long time and then finally approved us, and said, ‘We find it works better for residents and us if we just sign people to month-to-month leases,’” says Myers. “One month later, they let us know that they were tearing down the building.”

Myers sees a single strain running through the community’s mobilization around Skinner's murder, Pride’s political messaging issue and this redevelopment.

“There is definitely a clash of values, of money over people, large developments and investment over human-scaled environments,” he says. “And at Pride, [also of] money over people, corporate and government dollars over free speech and the protection of freedom of expression.”

The development site - Church and Gloucester:


View Larger Map





Share |


Reader Comments


 
Enough with the 'podiums'
Whether it's One King West, the old Knights of Columbus Hall on Sherbourne, the Distillery District, or this project, Toronto architects and faux-preservationists seem to have a fetish for using historic buildings as podiums for their mega-projects. No longer unique, far from it, it has become the signature for the early part of this decade's architecture. Besides, podiums put rent-controlled tenants at the mercy of higher rents elsewhere. There are plenty of less historic blights in Toronto's streetscape that could be replaced by condo towers. This project represents the destruction of Church Street history, no matter how much of the old bricks and mortar is left to anchor the new.
Kenn Chaplin, Toronto Ontario
06/21/10 2:56 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Pls. sign petition for transparency on development
We believe that community consultations for new developments should take place at the earliest possible stage. The city and the developer do not want to engage local residents regarding the condo slated to be built at Gloucester and Church until the end of 2010 or 2011. As residents of this area, we have a democratic right to information. We demand a community meeting with the city and the developer on this proposal before July 31st 2010. http://www.facebook.com/iamwithkristyn?v=app_7146470109#!/iamwithkristyn?v=app_7146470109
Subha Ghai, Toronto Ontario
06/21/10 7:12 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
A sea change?
Could it be that Church Wellesley has finally woken up and had enough Daddy-knows-best urban planning? I hope so. As currently written, the 'democratic right to information' stops -- if my memory serves me correctly -- about a 60 metres radius from the site, and even then only when official plan amendments or zoning bylaw changes are needed. Anything more inclusive than that is entirely based on the 'goodwill' of the developer or the inclination of the local councillor. Keep that in mind when you're deciding who to vote for this October. They won't be able to run every decision by you, so make sure you choose the right candidate. Find out their position on the rights of developers versus that of the local communities as well as their general attitudes about the urban growth machine. Or you could end up with Kyle Rae 2.0 - and don't that give ya nightmares?
Alex, Toronto ON
06/22/10 4:28 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Build it!
This is a city. Tall buildings are built in cities right next to short buildings all the time. This building is being proposed for the downtown core next to the Yonge subway line where more density is required and where the infastructure can support it. Move to the suburbs and stop all this NIMBY complaining! More buildings like this in the village will help support the business on the street because lots of people live in them! All I ask is that there be commercial space on the first 2 floors on all sides of the building that front the streets and that the building connect well with the street. Setbacks, podiums, nice landscaping etc. And if the community doesn't like it, instead of just complaining, offer solutions to the problems you have. This builder will probably get the go ahead to build this building. The community make friends and either work with him to address the concerns and come to a workable solution of stand with your arms crossed and pout in the corner and get nothing.
Joe, Toronto Ontario
06/22/10 4:37 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Not looking for a suburb
Joe says: And if the community doesn't like it, instead of just complaining, offer solutions to the problems you have. This builder will probably get the go ahead to build this building. The community make friends and either work with him to address the concerns and come to a workable solution of stand with your arms crossed and pout in the corner and get nothing." Fair enough, Joe, nobody like a whiner, but unless there's a meaningful community consultation there really isn't an option to suggest a "workable solution" or become involved, and one is relegated to standing in the corner pouting. Certainly complaining after the fact does no good. Complaining and doing nothing does no good. I know enough people like that. But sitting back and saying "this is downtown and anything goes" is most certainly not the answer either. But height is almost always the feature people seize upon - it is a tangible thing to oppose when you feel excluded from the process. I think people would be more comfortable with height if city officials, elected reps and developers displayed something other than contempt when locals ask for involvement and even a say. And there are social implications to building more of these vertical suburbs that few of us can afford - and knocking down the village's rental housing to get there.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/23/10 2:30 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Build It
My worst fear is the rise in car traffic, from the visitors and tenants of the new building, so they'd better get around that somehow. Otherwise, this is a great idea. It may actually provide more incentive to clean up the Cawthra Square/519/Beer Store block. The nice buildings, Fuzion, Voglie, and that other one beside it, will be preserved. The sweaty old mold patch they're tearing down, amen! The Village is a great neighbourhood, but it would be greater if we had more residents that actually supported the struggling businesses on the strip (ie. new condo residents). The closing of Club Toronto this year proved a good point, it's time to say goodbye to the places that have turned to shit.
Ryan, Toronto ON
06/23/10 8:08 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Put in fewer parking spots
Ryan, I agree with you to a point. But let's remember that the 'upgrade' you are talking about isn't without significant downsides. Look at some of the recent losses - This Ain't the Rosedale, etc. Hardly 'good riddance'! The key to keeping lively, fun downtown neighbourhoods is a mix of incomes and housing types. Condo buildings tend not to add to the community spirit in relation to the large numbers of people they house - they are isolating in character. So some low rise and other administrative forms - rental, co-ops, social housing etc. must be retained. Affordable retail, even. Community meetings in the Bay condo corridor get attended by 12, 15, maybe 20 people. There is little connection to the neighbourhood when you take the elevator to B and drive up and out. If all that comes out of this and other developments is attraction of the international business class, that's the death knell for Church as we know it. I think many people are waking up to the fact that while they weren't paying attention, their neighbourhoods has been sold out from under them. As for the cars, they can negotiate with the city for a lower number of parking spaces. That's entirely reasonable this close to the subway system. If the argument is intensification it makes no sense to put in the standard number of parking spaces.
Alex, Toronto ON
06/24/10 12:35 AM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
Dundonald will be over run with cars
Dundonald street is a pedestrian street. Both the exit and entrance to this condo are going to be located on Dundonald street. this is going to completely change this beautiful street. I'm fine with the condo going up, that's inevitable in our city, but if the condo has an address located on Church street then the cars should be on Church street as well. Please raise this issue in future meetings. This will totally change the beautiful and hidden gem called Dundonald.
Antonio, Toronto Ontario
07/29/10 10:55 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.
July 29 Meeting Videos Available
Kristyn Wong-Tam, one of the founders of the Church and Wellesley Residents Association, has videos of the July 29 consultation meeting with the developers at http://kristynwongtam.ca/519-community-meeting for those that missed it
Joe, Toronto Ontario
08/04/10 3:01 PM EST
Report this comment to moderator.