LOBLAWS PLAZA: LETTER TO THE CITY PLANNER
Sent to the City Planner, City Councillor, and the developer Choice Properties on February 27, 2023. Signed by 64 residents who live next to the development site.
Dear Mr. Miller,
Thank you for organizing the Community Consultation meeting on February 15 regarding Choice Properties' development proposal for 2280 Dundas Ave West. We understand that you are leading City Planning's ongoing analysis and will soon comment on the locations, sizes, and heights of the proposed buildings, as well as the street layout and park location.
As you explained, your task requires deciding on how best to balance the site’s several overlapping policies, and this past meeting provided you an opportunity to factor the community's concerns. This letter is meant to help clarify the neighbourhood's prevailing opinion on the matter, and to provide specific recommendations on how the current development plan should be improved.
As we see it, the current proposal does not satisfactorily integrate Site and Area Specific Policy (SASP) #335, which was based on the 2009 Dundas-Bloor Avenue Study, with the City’s Tall Building Guidelines, which allows for towers. Instead of meaningfully incorporating SASP #335’s main organizing principle (a mid-rise development that increases gradually from south to north), the developer's plan features only isolated elements which seem out of place in a high-density development: specifically, an isolated park and traffic connections to our neighbourhood. For your analysis, please consider the following points:
1. KEEP RITCHIE AVENUE CLOSED TO THROUGH-TRAFFIC: While SASP #335 calls for connections to the surrounding neighbourhood, it also notes that these should be done "with particular regard for minimizing transportation impacts on the neighbourhood to the south." Given the scale of the development, directing any car traffic onto Ritchie or Herman Avenues would undoubtedly have an adverse impact on them. Since these two streets have always been dead-ends, their peaceful and unique character would be irrevocably altered. Instead, it would be vastly preferable to provide strong pedestrian and bicycle connections.
2. MAKE THE PARK A BUFFER TO THE EXISTING NEIGHBOURHOOD: Though SASP #335 mentions that the allocated parkland should be centrally located, this is done within the context of a mid-rise development. In contrast, encircling such a public space with towers would completely go against the intended character. Instead of being the calm, recreational park needed by the wider community, it would be an uncomfortable, desolate plaza—overexposed to adjacent car traffic and views from countless, towering windows.
We believe it would be better to locate the park at the site's southern edge, stretching from Herman Ave to Ritchie Ave. Doing so would allow for higher density to be more effectively located closer to mass transit connections on Bloor Ave. Furthermore, locating the park next to the modestly-scaled existing neighbourhood would help provide a much needed buffer to the high-density of the proposed development, making a shared public space where old and new can be comfortably knitted together. As it currently stands, this key public amenity seems needlessly disconnected from the existing neighbourhood, central to the development alone without regard to the larger community.
3. BUILDING HEIGHTS SHOULD INCREASE GRADUALLY FROM SOUTH TO NORTH: of all the aspects outlined in the existing site specific policy, the community agrees most strongly that building height should increase gradually from south to north, starting with a scale that complements the existing neighbourhood. But while SASP #335 limits overall building height to mid-rise structures only, we understand that the City's Tall Building Guidelines would help achieve the province’s density goal for the area. We believe that these policies could be properly balanced in the following manner:
Limit heights for the buildings closest to our neighbourhood (#7, #6, and the eastern half of #5) to 12m, matching the zoning of Ritchie and Herman Avenues. As noted above, it would be even better if buildings #6 and #7 were made into the required park.
Restrict towers to a 45º constraining angle beginning at 12m above ground level at the north facades of buildings #7, #6, and the eastern half of #5. This would reduce towers #3, #4, and #5 to approximately 35, 14, and 20 floors respectively in their present locations.
We greatly appreciate the effort required on your part to assess such a large development proposal. We hope that you and your fellow staff will seriously consider these points and continue active engagement with our neighbourhood.