Draft Letter to Joe Pantalone

PALMERSTON AREA RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION

573 Euclid Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M6G 2T3

Liora Freedman

City of Toronto

Department of Planning

Feb 21, 2016

Dear Liora,

As you have heard from hundreds of local residents over the past two years of

public consultations, we are keenly interested in the Four Corners Study and its impact upon future development. It’s not a coincidence that our neighbourhood is a place where people know each other informally and form organizations for the betterment of our community. The families who inhabit our area have often resided here for decades, some for several generations. Our neighbourhoods have deep roots.

While we appreciate the effort and the intelligence the City Planning Department has brought to this study, the respect for heritage and the character of the area that it reinforces and the provision of park space it requires of any future development, we continue to have some serious concerns about this proposed amendment to the City’s Official Plan.

Fundamentally we believe that any new development near the Bloor and Bathurst intersection should be assessed first from the viewpoint of our historic, stable, neighbourhoods. The focus of the Four Corners Study seems to be on the “avenues” – how much development the larger streets can bear -- as opposed to viewing development from the perspective of the successful “ecology” that has developed in our neighbourhoods over the past century. The more appropriate analysis, we think, comes from answering the following key questions:

· How does a proposed development contribute to the existing neighbourhood?

· How might it detract from the adjoining neighbourhood?

· How can a proposed development be adjusted to fit not just the built form, but the existing life in the neighbourhoods?

· Can the existing infrastructure support development without imposing difficulty on the adjoining neighbourhoods?

It’s ironic that the very characteristics – quiet, residential streets, trees and gardens, historic buildings, stable, caring communities and individual-owned businesses, geared to local needs -- that attract people to an area are often disregarded by large scale re-development. One of the important components of making Toronto such a great place is the diversity of its smaller communities. It is important, therefore, to preserve the communities and ensure that future development fits into our communities in a meaningful way.

To that end, we’d like you to consider a new principle: “Connectivity to adjoining neighbourhoods”. The Mirvish Village Task Group – representing Seaton Village, Annex, Harbord Village and Palmerston Area Residents’ Associations – met on February 11 and compiled these comments, which echo concerns you have already heard from many individual residents.

1. Density. This seems to be a very difficult question to address. However, to preserve the livability of neighbourhoods as well as the street life, we need some tools within city policy to rein in unbridled overcrowding by new development proposals. Putting a cap on the height of towers could be a start. Restricting development to mid-rise might be another. Increased density will strain existing infrastructure such as electrical grids, water delivery and sewage disposal, as well as social infrastructure, parks, greenspace, daycare etc. possibly beyond its capacity. We understand that the city is already at its maximum to provide these vital services. We need a way to address this within the city’s policy.

2. Transitioning to neighbourhood. Taller development/buildings should be placed towards Bloor and Bathurst Streets, not towards the neighbourhood. Avenues are already commercial areas and can support the increased activity. Situating the taller and higher density buildings towards the avenues will enable and improve the transition to the residential areas. The buildings closer to the neighbourhood should have greater setbacks and should be subject to an angle of less than 45 degrees. Alternatively, the study boundary should be relocated to the property line at the front of the building, or on the east side of Markham St.

3. Sunlight. While the study takes into account sunlight on the street during the summer, it does not do so during the winter months when sunlight is even more important. During the summer the light is bright even if the sun is not shining directly on the street. As well, most people want to be in the shade to keep cool. With shorter days in the winter, what sunlight is available is crucially important for maintaining a vibrant and cheerful street life. Sunlight during winter adds warmth to cold days and provides brightness in an otherwise cold and dreary season. It also melts the snow, making for safer walking. There should be guidelines for winter sun exposure on the residential streets. Shadow studies should be done to assess impacts on residential properties to the north.

4. Movement. The study still doesn't address the movement of people adequately. How can this area support a major increase in residential pedestrians, shopping and commuting? What is needed for the current infrastructure to support more people? One more crossing at Markham and Bloor doesn't address the movement of people in the area. More study is needed on this issue in order to inform the development of appropriate guidelines.

5. Fine grain retail. To truly maintain fine grain retail, the store frontages need to be reduced from 12 meters to 6 meters. Twelve meters is double the size of most stores on Bloor and Bathurst. While 12 m. is a maximum, we need to promote a smaller type of store. Reducing store frontages would also improve adjacency to and compatibility with existing heritage store frontages. There is already a problem in maintaining smaller independent businesses in the area. This type of retail needs to be strongly encouraged.

6. Gathering place. We continue to have difficulty with the term “gathering place” for Markham Street. (For example it is used in section 1.1). We are concerned that this can mean accommodating frequent large outdoor festivals or events, especially ones that carry on late into the night. (We have already heard this way of interpreting “gathering place” in the presentations of Westbank.) Because of the negative impacts on the adjoining stable dormitory neighbourhood we do not think that creating and promoting spaces for use by large gatherings are appropriate for this site. In early consultations, the public space was thought to be at the intersection of Bathurst and Bloor.

7. Lennox and London Streets need a specific usage designation. We want to ensure that businesses along these streets are compatible with the residential buildings across the street for them. Any new businesses fronting these streets should be of a service nature and not commercial/retail. This would be an ideal place for innovative business start-ups or for professional use such as lawyers and architects.

Thank you again for the opportunity to have input into this process.

Yours sincerely,

Paul MacLean,

Chair, Palmerston Area Residents’ Association & Mirvish Village Task Group