2112 DUNDAS ST WEST: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

Below are the results of our community survey held in March of 2024 regarding the developer’s February 2024 proposal.

1. BUILDING HEIGHT: How many stories tall should the proposed building be?

46% According to Site and Area Specific Policy 553: otherwise similar to the City's Mid-Rise guidelines, but 6-stories max

35% According to the site's current zoning: 4-stories max

15% According to the City's Mid-Rise guidelines: about 7-stories due to greater setbacks along the streets and laneway

4% As proposed: 10 stories

2. VISITOR PARKING: How many visitor parking spots should be provided?

67% 1 visitor space per 8 dwelling units (7 spaces for the current proposal)

20% 1 visitor space per 17 dwelling units (the minimum as currently proposed: 3 spaces)

13% More than 1 visitor per 8 dwelling units

3. CAR SHARING PARKING: Should there be any spots dedicated to a car sharing program?

77% Yes

23% No

4. RESIDENT PARKING: In addition to visitor and car share parking spaces, how many resident parking spaces should be provided?

31% 1 space per 1 dwelling unit (the max allowed by zoning)

31% 1 space per 2 dwelling units (half of the max allowed by zoning)

29% None as proposed

7% 1 space per 3–8 dwelling units

2% 1 space per 1.5 dwelling units

5. MULTIPLE-UNIT BEDROOMS: How many of the dwelling units do you think should be multiple-bedroom?

54% More than the City’s guidelines: 50% (average among responses)

46% According to the City's guidelines: 25%

6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: How many affordable housing units do you think the developer should provide?

54% As proposed to meet the City's Inclusionary Zoning policy were it fully in effect: 3%

46% More than the City’s guidelines: 25% (average among responses)

7. BUILDING FACADE STYLE: Of the six images below, which two best demonstrate an architectural style that you think would be appropriate for the development? (Choose two.)

8. REASONS FOR FACADE STYLE PREFERENCE: Which of the statements below best describe the two images that you selected? (Check as many that apply.)

58%: They most strongly reflect the existing character of the neighbourhood.

47%: They represent a good blend between old and new styles.

25%: They are probably what most people in the community would like.

17%: My personal tastes are different, but these images seem most appropriate for the site.

13%: They most strongly express current design trends.

  • • I'm not an architect. Not for me to say.

    • Show me a 10 storey version of these arch designs

    • I think it is unwise and unhelpful to dictate aesthetics. Our city is an organic growth structure.

    • Choose-your-own-adventure as architectural style-making is an odd approach in my opinion. To be clear, the current design as proposed is awful (my opinion) and basically represents what I would expect Midjourney to produce if I prompted it to create a budget midrise building in a contemporary Toronto style, but the solution is better architects with a supportive client demanding more from them. But this speaks to a broader deficit of a culture in Canada that values good design and not something likely to get addressed in this development. I’m not sure where you’re going with this exercise, but it seems like it would devolve into rigid style guidelines which I’m not sure will necessarily lead to a good result - I’m not aware of them having worked successfully elsewhere, but I suppose we might disagree on how one defines success in this case and that may entirely be my point. A more systemic approach might be for Toronto to appoint a City Architect (like Berlin for example) who can have an overriding vision for the city and demand more of developers before approving projects.

    • I don't think the City / zoning bylaws have the ability to control "style" or appearance of buildings... however my personal tastes are for C and F. C uses contextual materials and has a nice rhythm of bays along sidewalk yet is a contemporary design that reflects the current age. F effectively breaks down the mass in an interesting way (though I don't love the brick colour). The others are largely bulky, derivative or have too many materials and details that won't be built well given contemporary building techniques and the reality that it's a rental building.

9. MAJOR CONCERNS: Which of the following are of major concern to you regarding the proposed development? (Check as many that apply.)

75%: Too big

69%: Inadequate parking

48%: Not enough multi-bedroom dwelling units

43%: Not enough affordable housing units

40%: Architectural style should be appropriate

5%: I have no major concerns

  • • Shadows, quality of life for my neighbours

    • Environmental impact of the build - one example, we understand an old fuel tank is beneath the property and this can cause toxic effects when trying to dislodge it. materials used, Noise levels, blocking light and privacy on residences property

    • I have no faith the builder will build livable spaces for families. We don't want our new neighbours to live in a shoebox, we would like them happy.

    • This is going to be a rental building, how are you going to manage move-in/move-outs every month without blocking lane way access?

    • The new tower will literally be overlooking my backyard. On the lane way. Noise from tenants in their balconies (overlooking my backyard.) need a sun/shade study as a tall bldg will limit sun in my backyard. Laneway blockage from tenants moving/garbage pickup. Construction noise/vibration/blocking golden/laneway during construction. Attracting younger/single tenants in a family neighbourhood

    • Height is an issue that may not be adequately described as "too big". This building will set yet another precedent and should be limited in height.

    • Increased pressure on transit

    • Parking. There already is not enough parking for those that live here and have to street park.

    • Displacement of the current tenants

10. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FOR DEVELOPER: Please provide any additional comments you think would be important for the developer to consider:

  • • Safety concerns regarding narrow side walk, blocked side walk or not enough space for wheelchair/ stroller during construction.

    • Traffic concerns, Blocking sun for many of the neighbours, precedent it sets if built, Loblaws build on top of this (if it goes ahead). Our neighbourhood is a gem - quiet dead end streets which are few and far between in Toronto. Kills the neighbourhood vibe. Not the best words but I hope you can reword it.

    • Construction chaos - restricting either Dundas or Golden, either will be a pain in the butt for anyone accessing Golden Ave

    • The houses and families to the North on golden have been enjoying the sun and gardening for 20 years I hope the height won’t ruin that

    • Concern of parking that will spill onto other streets. Please keep the structure of the design to reflect the character and charm of our neighbourhood. No high buildings please. Thank you.

    • We are a small street already hosting a large commercial building, right up against the tracks. The transportation hub density is surely MORE than being addressed by the Loblaws plaza development. Why here? Why so high? Please, for once, could money not dictate choices purporting to be in service of creating liveable cities?

    • So many neighborhoods in this city have drawn developers in with their charm only to have that charm obliterated by gross new condos, please...enough..

    • It would be so refreshing to see a developer actually construct something to meet the needs of the citizens in the area as opposed to constructing for profit first and human needs second.

    • Most trees that are planted around medium rises die in the 1st year Adequate space and planting is essential Take for example other developments nearby. Most trees are dead or dying.

    • The neighbourhood needs affordable housing for families.

    • Concern about the tenants currently there? Will they have first right to buy?

    • Allow space for landscaping.

    • Find another neighborhood and street to develop this giant tower on

    • Cycling infrastructure and secure bike parking

    • Pls take our concerns into account Thank you!!

    • Not against new development un the area, but any new development needs to consider what is reasonable in terms of size. This building is simply too big for the lot

    • Greenery and Trees.

    • Again, it's such a struggle to park our single car which we mostly only use on weekends.

    • I am deeply concerned about parking. It is already very challenging and the area is getting more and more congested.

    • The 10 story proposed concept is stupid. Clearly you have never lived in this area and have no concept of the amount of foot traffic/car traffic this would create. Secondly, no one is going to pay 3k plus per one bedroom unit. Go on any rental site and see the amount of vacant one bedrooms.

    • Change happens, and I support growth, but we have to be aware of the surrounding neighbourhood and ensure development ensures minimal impact on the direct residents. Assuming that by removing parking, building residents and their visitors will use transit to get here is a ridiculous notion. We still live in a city where many travel by car, if only from time to time. This surrounding area (and especially Golden Ave) is already under great parking pressure with several businesses requiring people to use cars to get to and from their location.

    • 3-4 stories max!

    • I feel that the community should have more affordable housing available as most people who need it are locked out of new or condo buildings. If you can't afford to buy your out.

    • Ontario is one of the only jurisdictions in the entire world that has a loophole for permitting windowless bedrooms. Please consider taking the highroad and not including them in your development. They would be illegal just about anywhere else. Imagine your child or your teenager growing up without a window.

    • Shadowing on neighbourhood. Bulkiness and massing should not be secondary or in service to maximizing unit count regardless of whether its a rental building. The small CRU facing Golden may never be leased as there is so little foot traffic...that area would likely be better used as rentable area if added to the Dundas-facing CRU, and/or used to improve the tiny unwelcoming lobby space for the residents and/or used to increase visitor parking at the rear