LOBLAWS PLAZA: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS

Below are the results of our community survey held in November of 2022. We asked our neighbours questions related to the developer’s latest proposal.

1. CAR TRAFFIC LINKS: The current proposal links car traffic on Ritchie Avenue to the development’s new street grid, allowing this street to serve as vehicular access for the site’s new businesses and estimated 3,500 residents. Which statement best reflects your view on traffic connections to the new development?

95% I prefer no traffic links from Herman and Ritchie Avenues to the new development, except for emergency vehicular access if required by the city.

5% I support traffic links from Herman and Ritchie Avenues to the new development.

2. NEW PARK LOCATION: The current proposal shows a new public park in the middle of the development, surrounded by tall buildings. Where do you think would be the most appropriate location for a new park?

84% I would prefer that the new park be between the new development and our existing neighbourhood, helping knit the two together.

11% The new park is shown in a good location, away from our existing neighbourhood.

5% No opinion

3. BUFFER ZONE: The developer is planning a publicly accessible landscaped area called the “South Garden Walk” as a buffer to the existing properties on Herman and Ritchie Avenues. This is in contrast to the previous 2018 proposal, which included this area as part of a larger public park. How do you feel about this buffer zone?

86% I would prefer that this buffer be part of a larger public park, similar to the previous 2018 development proposal.

9% I'm fine with this new buffer zone, and would prefer that it be publicly accessible as proposed.

5% I'm fine with this new buffer zone, but would prefer that it be only privately accessible by residents of the new development.

4. HEIGHT OF NEW BUILDINGS NEAR EXISTING HOUSES: The developer is proposing heights of 6–8 storeys for buildings sited near the existing houses along Herman and Ritchie Avenues. In your view, what height would be most reasonable for any new buildings built near these houses?

77% 3–4 storeys to match current zoning on Ritchie & Herman Avenues, and as recommended in the city's 2009 Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study

10% 5 storeys

2% 6–8 storeys as proposed by the developer

11% Another height (write-in response)

  • • I prefer 3-4 storeys but there is a lot of context to consider here including set back, design, access, location of park and/or buffer, etc.

    • 3- 5 storeys

    • Lower on the south side of bldgs facing Ritchie/Herman neighbours (I.e 3-4 storeys) and potentially higher facing the public park as this is less of a privacy issue. Building 7 in particular looks quite out of scale with the small scale res on Ritchie.

    • maximum 3 storeys

    • I think they can be as tall as they want as long as they are opposite a public park and not just the narrow buffer they are proposing now

    • any where under 7 or 8 stories

    • as per original design..no buildings along Herman and Ritchie...only park..any/all buildings to be as far as possible from existing neighborhood as originally promised.

    • 2 - 3 storeys

    • I don't care about building heights. Because the development is to the north of our community, I don't expect any major sun/shade impacts. But I do care about whether buildings "meet the street" at a human scale, meaning that the neighbourhood remains safe, walkable, and enjoyable for pedestrians.

5. TOWER ALTERNATIVES: The developer aims to build almost 2,000 housing units by means of five towers ranging from 22–38 storeys among other buildings up to 10 storeys tall. Which, if any, of the following alternatives would be preferable to you?

56% I would prefer a plan that uses only mid-rise buildings (4—11 stories) as recommended in the city's 2009 Bloor-Dundas Avenue Study. Depending on the details, such an approach could provide 70–90% of the proposed housing units and the same amount of open space.

34% I would prefer an alternative using mostly mid-rise buildings. However, if needed to meet the developer's housing target, I would support construction of the 1—3 proposed towers on the site's north end.

3% I prefer the Developer's current plan with all five towers.

5% Another alternative (write-in response)

2% No opinion

  • • I find it hard to answer based on these options.

    • I prefer to keep towers and lessen the height of buildings 6 and 7 next to the existing res neighbourhood.

    • My preference is a) but if needed b)

    • I would prefer 11 storey buildings (and designed properly I suspect they could equal the number of units proposed) but I think there are more pressing concerns to push for in this development so I would not waste energy on this point.

    • as far away from the homes that back on to Loblaw parking lot..to prserve the privacy and respect of the familiues that live along the parking lot

    • If more height means more actually affordable housing then go sky high.

    • Mostly mid rise in existing loblaws site, taller if the existing school property is built on

    • Again, building height is not a major concern for me. If tall towers means more affordable housing (see my priorities below), then I support towers. Existing homeowners should not prevent new housing construction based strictly on aesthetic tastes.

6. AFFORDABLE HOUSING: It is unclear how many affordable housing units the developer will provide. What amount do you think would be most appropriate?

73% At least 10% to match the city's new guidelines

10% More than 10% (write-in response)

3% No minimum

14% No opinion

  • • We need AT LEAST 10% affordable housing as well as a greater portion of multi-unit rental apartments rather than just primarily one bedroom units. The city desperately needs shelter and affordable housing space.

    • 20% - we need to tackle the affordability crisis in a meaningful way

    • 20 percent!

    • 10% or less.

    • 50%

    • 25

    • 20% family units. 3 bedroom units.

    • Affordable (defined as 80% market price) is not sufficient. Low income housing should be included. At least 20%

    • Given the housing crisis, 20%

    • Given the cost of rent and the scarcity of affordable rentals in the city, 20%.

7. COMMENTS & OTHER CONCERNS: several people mentioned that the development should include the following:

  • Development of the Bishop Marrocco High School site if possible

  • TTC and GO train connections (perhaps by means of a compromise solution with TDSB that allows the high school to stay but still provides these connections)

  • Pedestrian/cycling bridge to Toronto West Railpath

  • New laneway behind houses on Herman & Ritchie Avenues

  • Parking enforcement

  • A reduced construction timeline (by fewer phases or use of quicker construction techniques, like mid-rise mass-timber buildings)

  • Better park and community amenities

  • • If Herman Avenue is to be connected to the development via pedestrian-access-only, then so should Ritchie Avenue

    • House density is too high; House Mix reflects the city average and not the neighborhood average, I would like to see more 2 Bedrooms and 3 Bedrooms in the Mix, - Retail space for small businesses, keeping the same "Roncesvalles Ave." vibe, (small shops close to the sidewalk). Dedicated and pre plan space for a new daycare facility. - Provide a bicycle and pedestrian bridge over the Rail tracks.

    • Other concerns: -Amount of change in the hood - OTHER proposed changes to our area i.e. Master Mechanic site (for one) - Park - Feel like it will be for the residents of those properties - not for us - Quality of life: One of the beauty of buying in this neighbourhood twenty years ago, was the dead end streets and the quiet neighbourhood. With the influx of 10x the current density, it is frightening!

    • the real crisis is affordable housing, environmental sustainability, and human scale urban planning. Thousands of new housing units doesn’t address this

    • I would like the location of the school to remain on the table; am concerned that the pedestrian bridge over the rail corridor is not being being discussed; would like to see how the space will address stormwater management, urban forest canopy and overall climate resiliency; am not sure how a road could be made only for emergency vehicle access or how that would be managed (interested to learn more about that feasibility); want to know what the developer will do to truly support walking and cycling access because other neighbourhoods of this density like Liberty Village feel like a parking lot with buildings surrounded by aggressive drivers; want to know more about how traffic and safety will be managed if Ritchie is opened up e.g. will there be restrictions on vehicles turning, will it become a one way street; I think residents should become more informed about the overall approvals process and the various ways to give input.

    • I would suggest the developer include a pedestrian bridge over the rails to connect the development and the old neighbourhood to the rail path

    • What stands out most to me is the omission of bishop Morocco, which I feel is a great missed opportunity to revitalize the pedestrian interface at the street level, with shops/restaurants etc. I feel the value of these things on such a prominent corner supersedes the that of a school, if it could be moved elsewhere nearby (ie further inside the development)

    • I am very concerned about traffic and parking on Ritchie/Golden/Silver. Please consider anything that can be done to discourage street parking by visitors/residents of the new development. It is already difficult to find a spot near my house (I don’t have a garage).

    • I'm concerned that there is so little retail space going in, especially with the removal of Loblaws. I'd like to see more retail space as these thousands of people will need to shop somewhere. I also am concernd about impact on TTC.

    • I feel like the resolution at the end of Herman is unfortunate. A new axial view corridor has been created with that new street terminating in an existing semi detached house… The axial view along Herman is to a loading dock which seems particularly unfortunate. Shifting that loading entrance further north (flipping to with exit stair) and adding a green space / continuing the green space along side the path alongside building 6, with a more gracious pedestrian connection to Herman would be a nicer way to resolve this area.

    • This proposal is hideous. They shouldn't be allowed to build such high towers. Hopefully the planned retail spaces will be occupied by useful businesses (grocery, pharmacy, etc)

    • We live on Herman Ave. and our backyard fence is a border for the Loblaws parking lot. The distance from the back of our house to our backyard fence is only 10 feet. The proposed plan would eliminate our view of the sky.

    • The architecture (both massing and expression) as shown is utterly banal at best, and a pastiche of lazy, boiler-plate 'contemporary' design at worst. It would be refreshing if they would support more inspired design. This need not be splashy or attention-getting... confident, well-designed background buildings would be welcome.

    • Disappointed to see that the school is not part of the redevelopment. Initial proposal had links to transit that were appealing.

    • No street access to Herman and Ritchie; keep them dead ends. People over cars. Get the school deal done and go back to the 2018 plan.

    • If there have to be towers to match the housing targets, it would be nice if there were public amenities at some of the high floors (like a public library) that would allow community members to engage with these spaces freely and allow them access to views that would only otherwise be enjoyed by private units.

    • I FEEL ACCESS TO DUNDAS WEST SUBWAY VIA ONLY ONE ENTRANCE AND A VERY NAROW SIDEWALK WILL BE A HUGE ISSUE IN ACCOMMODATING THE HUGE INCREASE IN PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC TO THE STATION. I FEEL A SECOND ENTRANCE OR AT THE VERY LEAST A WIDER SIDEWALK FROM BLOOR STREET TO THE STATION IS A MUST.

    • I would like the developers to follow the mid-rise and high rise guidelines. I would like them to illustrate the rear angular plane set back as defines in the guidelines - and explain the rational for not following these guidelines.

    • parking!.. thru traffic as per new plans! congestion. we/ I hope the developer / city will respect the opinions of the families who have made a life in the neighborhood. and, not change plans that only benefit the developer $$!

    • More than 50% of units should become affordable housing units in order to help combat issues regarding gentrification and unstable housing in the area. Affordable housing units are is of the only means of true rent control and it needs to be more prevalent in these big developments we're seeing all the time. Another thing that should be considered is creating allocated parking for these developments as to not flood the streets for those who already live here and have to battle it out for parking already, the rise in local condo developments has made the situation much worse and this would only add to that. I don't believe we should be building any more massive condos especially of this scale. There should be more of a focus on public housing and public infrastructure that would be more beneficial and wouldn't just cater to the goal of make more money by exploiting people for wanting to live in the city.

    • Parking is a major issue on Golden, especially enforcement. I'm flabbergasted that only %17 of the units will have parking. That number is way too low. I know it's a great transit hub where we are but that is nuts.

    • With so many people paying market rent starting at $2,500 for a one-bedroom apartment in this area it is most important that new tenants can either rent a unit based on their total income or non-for-profit units. People in their early 50's are having more struggles to keep up with entering a new building at a reasonable amount of rent. I am a person with a disability, and it would be great to offer some accessible units to the public also at a reasonable amount of rent to pay. Residents in the area who love this community are getting forced out by new condos and the real estate market. We need affordable housing now. thank you.

    • We are concerned for the parking nightmare to increase with this development. It is already very challenging. I can’t imagine what it will turn into in the future.

    • I'm really disappointed with the inability to reach an arrangement with the school board. I realize that there are many players, as the TDCSB leases the land from TDSB, which is by turn managed by the Toronto Lands Corporation. In the interests of a successful development, I would like the City to intervene as much as they can to facilitate the original design. I may misunderstand things, but isn't the land ultimately City property?

    • Not enough parking spaces in current design, traffic concerns with respect to use of laneways as roadways. The development MUST have affordable housing for families.. that’s means 3 bedroom units.

    • There should be a commitment in writing for affordable housing.

    • Car traffic and parking concerns. As well as access to ttc and UP concerns.

    • We are concerned over the amount of parking available to us as there is already difficulty with finding parking. Additionally, we are strongly against opening Ritchie Ave and Herman ave to vehicular traffic to the new development. We want to maintain the privacy of the neighbourhood and the safety of the many children who play in the park, street and neighbourhood

    • The exclusion of Bishop Marrocco from the plan may not be a done deal. I would prefer the original plan from 2018.

    • Bicycle infrastructure is necessary given the number of people and units. The development should focus on transit, bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as the most likely, safe and logical modes of transportation for the area.

    • The previous proposal gets 100% from me, the current proposal gets only a 50%.

    • For Q6, I would prefer mid-rise buildings, but would be ok with a few towers if they are located on the site's North end (along Bloor).

    • Mostly concerned about vehicular traffic on Ritchie and Herman, the latter of which is single lane traffic only due to the width of the road. Additionally, this is a very kid-centric neighbourhood; I would be very concerned with the excess traffic this would bring.

    • I also believe that integration with a transit hub (Dundas west TTC, UP express and GO) should be integral to the design of this development.

    • I feel conflicted about the issue, as I support high-density, affordable housing in the city, but do not want to see our little pocket become overrun with traffic. Although I don't remember all the details, the original proposal seemed to provide a good amount of housing while maintaining pleasant public space for the neighbourhood.

    • Very much against the opening up of Ritchie Ave and Herman Ave. This is a family friendly neighbourhood with many children. This is will completely change the feel of this close knit community. There will be continuous traffic as people try to bypass Dundas/Roncy. What will happen with resident parking on both Ritchie and Herman? For those of us that only have street parking, how will the changes affect that?

    • The current plan with a Central Park surrounded by roads seems like a terrible idea if you want anyone to use it, especially children.

    • parking is a major concern in our area. This increased density will make it even more of an issue. How will this be dealt with?Such tall buildings will completely change the face and community feel of the neighborhood but not in a positive way. Liberty village style is not desirable. The focus on one bedroom apartments does not promote family based neighbourhood but rather single style living which is less desirable in large quantities. The original plan had more mixed styles of housing including townhomes. Where did these go?

    • Regarding tower alternatives, I would prefer to have lower rise bordering Herman Avenue rather than mid rise. . Need more green space. Would prefer green space blending into the existing streets and not have building face us so as to not feel blocked in..

    • I find it very difficult to balance my wishes with what is best for me with what would be best for the City.

    • The proposed development is extremely concerning with the effect it could potentially have on the area, and the different iterations it has gone through aren't doing much to allay concerns

    • We opened a non profit for people with disabilities and support parents..looking for a potential space for programs in the new development building, we need that support in our area, the closest support for special needs community is on st Clair and Caledonia and there is wait list

    • Why was the plan radically changed? My sense was that the 2018 plan was generally favoured by residents.

    • I very much dislike the extension of Ritchie Ave.

    • We have a very small backyard. Our back gate opens up into Loblaws parking. We are very concerned about what will be built behind us and how it will detrimentally affect us-privacy, lack of sunlight, unable to have exterior access to our backyard. We are also concerned about the new development residents parking on our tiny crowded streets.

    • Concerned about damage to old houses/ structures with nearby digging Opportunity to improve transit (ie new platform/ underground or bridge connections to Dundas West station and Bloor Go) Water management (opportunity for semi permeable surfaces)

    • The new proposal is far, far worse than the previous plan. We should spend our energy as a community putting pressure on the developer, the school boards, and the City to negotiate an agreement regarding Bishop Marrocco, and revive the previous plan. Thanks for organizing this!

    • The development is too close to herman and Ritchie.

    • The new plan is terrible comparing to the 2018 plan. I was strongly in favor of the 2018 plan. The proposed density tucked in that space, with no avenue for cars to exit directly on Bloor will create havoc on traffic at Dundas Bloor intersection. The connection on Ritchie and Herman will completely change viability on the neighborhood and destroy what we created. The density backing up to houses on Herman is offensive compared to the beautiful 2018 plan that was discussed for so long with the community. The city and the province should force the School Board to sell and move to a brand new school as per 2018 plan.

    • This plan has changed substantially from the 2018 plan, and should be wholly rejected. In no way should the community of Herman and Ritchie be disrupted by joining our roads to the new development, with thousands of new residents accessing those roads daily. This new plan also seems to significantly diminish the infrastructure (connection to transit, etc) and number of amenities (shops, etc) which made up the 2018 plan. This proposed development has no place on our community.

    • My house backs onto the Loblaws development and I'm appalled by the new proposal. The proposed condo towers over my backyard, leaving no privacy, and even casting a large shadow. The plan proposed isolates itself from the community, it creates a concrete jungle that feels cold and devoid of any character. If the plan was to close the development off from the rest of community, create thousands of units with no care about the greater community, then you, choice properties, have succeeded.

8. TOP ISSUES:

1. Eliminating car traffic links from the development to Herman and Ritchie Avenues

2. Restricting building height, especially nearest to the existing neighbourhood

3. Making the park part of a large buffer adjacent to the existing neighbourhood with meaningful outdoor public amenities

4. Providing a meaningful amount of affordable housing

5. Ensuring that the density is not overwhelming

  • • Traffic Links; Towers; Park Location

    • Density and affects on infrastructure Traffic!!! Neighbourhood quality feels lost - losing the intimacy of our hood Pandora box opener - does this open the box for future multiple story developments along Roncy or Bloor (Giraffe?) Shadows - I didn't have time to read the whole thing as of yet but how it affects all of us

    • Ritchie Avenue as vehicular access to the site: NO! 2. There should be more internal roadways within the development itself, to take the strain off HRGS, whose roadways were NEVER meant to support heavy vehicular traffic. Herman and Ritchie are already strongly affected by delivery vehicles (vis a vis Amazon and other deliver-to-home purchasing. The intersection of Ritchie and Herman is already a "turnaround" point for vehicles whose drivers are looking for shortcuts. (Google Maps intimates Ritchie is a through-street.and that the laneway between Dundas Street West and Herman Avenue is a roadway.) 3.

    • Environmental sustainability: Neighbourhood green canopy; High Park and Sorauran Park over use; increased vehicle traffic; increased noise, air and light pollution Affordable housing accessible to under and marginally housed (i.e. significant co-op and not for profit housing not for-profit condo development)

    • I am against the proposal to connect Ritchie Ave.to the development site The density of the development should be scaled back considerably..

    • integrating the development with the surrounding neighbourhood. Accessible and enjoyable park space. No through fares for cars on Ritchie and Herman to the new development.

    • Car traffic links

    • I don’t like the plan at all and will consider moving. There are way too many high rises being built and I don’t believe the infrastructure can support the population. Short term thinking, noisy, hideous, not nice space to live in, boooooo

    • Traffic Parking Reduced height of towers

    • Traffic Parking Lack of clarity about affordable housing

    • Overlook / privacy issues for houses on Ritchie / Herman (including pushing for larger trees to go in right from the get go?) Traffic concerns along Ritchie (including street parking) Views along herman Staging of construction and when vehicular access will be opened up. Quality of park / including dog walking facilities if possible. Design of buildings / materiality / scale.

    • Green space access, parking and environmental issues

    • The number of towers limited to 3, north side only 2. Location of the public park moved to be positioned between the two neighbourhoods.

    • Opening up our dead end streets will completely destroy the community foundation, which currently promotes kids playing, pedestrian and bikers traversing, and families socializing safely in our streets. Isn’t this what urban planning is trying to achieve so should be replicated — not destroyed! 2. While I support high density living, the current proposed heights are too high; I believe there is a way to achieve high density without it being on steroids! 3. The current architecture (buildings and landscaping) is uninspiring.

    • Noise

    • Parking and vehicular taffic

    • Top Issue: Towers are way too high - keep them at the 3-4 floor limit!!!!!

    • Large green space close to/beside residential streets, Herman & Ritchie Limit/reduce high rise buildings

    • Buildings are too close to existing neighbourhood (2) Buildings closest to existing neighbourhood are too tall (3) Parkland buffer between proposed buildings and existing neighbourhood is too small (4) Ritchie and Herman Avenues MUST NOT be connected to the proposed site for vehicular traffic

    • My backyard on Ritchie backs onto the parking lot - I think a public park makes most sense as a buffer to the new development - then they can go as high as they want. The currently proposed buffer is too narrow to successfully separate us from 6-8 storey buildings. Generally, I am in favour of greater density and I don't wish to be a "nimby". I welcome the new development and it's density, but I think it would make sense to take the public park they are already proposing and just reposition it to be a buffer - then those buildings opposite could even be taller than 6-8 storeys. 2) connections to Ritchie and Herman are natural and welcome but they should not be for motorized vehicles, just pedestrians and bicycles (and emergency vehicles if necessary). 3) The developers should take much more of a lead in terms of sustainability -- build with mass timber and follow Passive House standards to limit energy use 4) The developers should also be taking much more of a lead in terms of social responsibility -- more affordable, below-market units and great public spaces for everyone in the neighbourhood to enjoy. 5) Please insist that every bedroom have an operable window to the outside. "Interior" bedrooms with sliding barn doors and no natural light are common in current developments because they exploit a loophole in the Ontario Building Code that allows them, but these are inhumane and completely illegal in most jurisdictions in North America -- imagine growing up in a bedroom with no window!

    • Increased traffic (negates children's safety), parking, proposed building heights, and affordable housing (is a must).

    • Most concerned about what is planned to be built directly next to the Herman/Ritchie (i.e. high rise towers vs. school/park - with a preference for low-rise/park), parking for current HRGS residents/visitors.

    • Old design is better Traffic on H&R Lack of affordable housing

    • Keeping Ritchie and Herman closed to thru traffic; building height directly behind houses in Ritchie and Herman should be at a modest scale; park should be in a better location.

    • I also think smaller commercial spaces should be available for small locally owned businesses, continuing the feel of Roncesvalles. (Instead of only giant chains) Mixed use commercial!?

    • PRIVACY - I DON'T WANT HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF NEW UNITS LOOKING DIRECTLY DOWN INTO TO MY BACK YARD.

    • 1: Ingress/egress to the new development via Ritchie and Herman Avenues 2: Building height immediately adjacent to existing neighbourhood 3: Location of public park for the benefit of everyone in the community

    • parking.. thru traffic as per new plans! congestion. the above are pretty much all equally important..

    • Size of buildings being midrise Park between neighbourhood and condos

    • -Massive influx of people in the area -Rent being raised for people and businesses who have been here for years -Extensive and prolonged construction making life miserable -Inadequate infrastructure to support the amount of new residents

    • I'm a little averse to having through traffic on Ritchie. I like the idea of an emergency only access. I can only see traffic problems increase. I live on Golden and the amount of people that have been driving on the sidewalk (even tho the road can take 3 cars across) has always been an issue with me. As a thoroughfare I can only see this happening all the time as people who live on Ritchie try to park their cars on the street. I wonder if it's possible to make a laneway for the garage-less people on Ritchie/Herman for their cars?

    • accessible and affordable units rent geared to income (RGI) 30-50% units being nonprofit units community park much appreciated

    • Car traffic and parking being pushed into our neighborhood. Access to TTC and bottle necking along Dundas W near blood street due to increased traffic and no road entrance/access along bloor. Park space should have more than just green space. (Eg: playground, dog leash off are, etc.) Foot bridge access to Toronto west rail path.

    • Traffic links with new development Height of buildings immediately adjacent to Ritchie and Herman

    • No through street in Herman or Ritchie Ave and parking for residents of Ritchie and Herman Ave. Enough green space to support that volume of people is also important to us.

    • I live on Herman very close to the Loblaws property. My top concern is the height of buildings closest to Herman. I'm a strong proponent of the original design. 2. A park between the end of Herman and the new development is critical. 3. Through traffic from Ritchie to new streets in the development is a terrible idea.

    • Concern that the increase in traffic volume and traffic flow around Bloor, Dundas Roncesvalles as well as the small streets.

    • Traffic is my major concern. These small streets are not wide enough for two way traffic all the time

    • Parking is such a huge issue on all the streets named in this survey. We currently struggle to accommodate the number of people with cars who live on the streets or work in the area. Access to affordable housing is horrible for people and the developers should have to consider this before a single hole is dug!

    • More park space closer to existing neighbourhood (Herman, Ritchie, Golden, Silver) - Minimal impact to traffic of streets noted above. Increased traffic means less safe streets for neighbourhood children.

    • Do not open Ritchie/Herman to automotive traffic into the development. 2) Deter residents + visitors from parking on our street 3) Find an alternative to ease our parking concerns as well. (maybe allowing access to the development parking to our neighbourhood so that we still have a place to park as there indefinitely will be increased parking demands with the new development)

    • Herman and Ritchie being turned into through streets. I would prefer this did not happen. Our streets are narrow and not appropriate for through traffic.

    • Transit and bicycle safety and access Preventing wind tunnels which deters use of outdoor space and street level community. Park space that is accessible and multipurpose

    • Lack of affordable housing Not a green, eco-conscious build Too much car parking Lack of bridge to rail trail Generic Toronto towers (bland and boring, destroys culture) Lack of proper transit access to the UP/Bloor & Lansdowne area

    • It's very important to me that the developers are matching, if not exceeding current quotas for affordable housing in the city.

    • Car traffic links Buffer zone Height of new buildings near existing houses

    • We need much better integration of public transport infrastructure.

    • Location of park land, through traffic on Ritchie, affordable housing, community space and building height

    • Construction vibration/noise/dust Traffic flows once developed

    • Parking and traffic Too high buildings and not enough mixed type of buildings The construction period and disruption to build such a huge complex Destruction of the family feel of our neighborhood

    • Excess traffic along Herman and Ritchie Avenues with new proposal. 2. Drainage issues with new development of buildings. 3. Noise. 3. Add more or as much green space with trees. 4. Will there be safety issues.

    • I would like ground floor stores of various sizes to create a pedestrian friendly space to interact with other members of the community in as much as is possible. Also, I would like a walking bridge over the rail corridor to help connect the neighborhoods.

    • -the sheer volume of new people this development would bring in to the area - how is the infrastructure going to support this? -really tall buildings jammed together could easily turn into an eyesore

    • Density, traffic safety, shadows.

    • No through traffic - keep Ritchie & Herman as dead-end streets No tall building (more than 3 stories) next to current housing (yards to be kept private) Significant portion of units should be for sale vs. all rentals Laneway to access backyards would be useful.

    • -if at all possible, can the new development make a small lane-way between the homes that open on to the Loblaws parking? Homes on one side of Herman and some homes on Ritchie. Then allow us to park our vehicles in our backyards. This would allow us all to keep our exterior access to our backyards, free up parking on Herman and provide a buffer between our existing neightbourhood and the new one. -If not, we prefer a park behind our house that faces the parking lot. We want to keep our exterior access to our backyard. We live in a rowhouse and if this access is blocked we will no longer have exterior access to our backyard. -We do not have laneway parking or a parking pad. We would like the city to allow for parking pads again due to the influx of new vehicles that will be present once the development is done. Also, with more electric cars available homes like ours without parking can never charge an electric car at home. -we live on Herman, if they allow this as a through street how will it be done? We have parking allowed on both sides and the road is restricted to one vehicle at one time (it is VERY narrow). If they allowed parking pads on the side of Herman that does not have laneway parking then it would free up that side of Herman for vehicle traffic.

    • Herman/ Ritchie Traffic

    • traffic. The roads are too narrow for truck traffic, and children routinely play on the streets. The new development will no doubt add many more cars to nearby roads. Herman and Ritchie should not be used as a short cut or through-way to Bloor or Dundas. 2. Affordable housing. We need concrete plans for affordability. All of us in this neighbourhood are privileged to live here. Rather than keep people out, we should be pushing to welcome more neighbours, especially those who would otherwise not be able to afford to purchase/rent here. Such a large development is an opportunity to extract commitments from the developer to build affordable units, perhaps in partnership with local community organizations and non-profits. 3. Community amenities. The current plan (and even the previous plan) includes no major community amenities, such as a new community centre, public playground, recreational facilities, spaces for community/artist groups, social service providers, etc. Just adding open space -- a patch of grass, really -- does not meaningfully benefit the community, especially for the 4,000+ new residents expected to live here. And without the Bishop Marrocco site in play, there appear to be no improvements in connections to the GO or TTC stations or rail path.

    • The development is too close to herman and Ritchie. I can’t express my disappointment and anger enough at the redesign with the tall buildings right up to our fences and the change in the park (feels like it is blocked off and won’t be used much in the Centre of these high rises). The connection of the road is the last straw - we moved here because we have young kids and want the dead end streets with pedestrian connection. Overall I feel like the community was totally ignored and this was developed in a bubble with profits only in mind.

    • Traffic and safety on herman and Ritchie. Those roads are not made for it. Lack of park between development and herman/ritchie. No traffic measures taken into account on Bloor Dundas intersection, which will wreck havoc on viability on an already heavy traffic location.

    • No opening of the Ritchie and Herman roads to the new development 2. No buildings more than four storeys high near Ritchie and Herman 3. Ensuring green space maintained between new development and Ritchie/Herman so that our community is not disrupted. 4. Ensuring that the development keeps to its 2018 plan of building access to transit and the West Toronto Railpath 5. Ensuring that adequate amenities (grocery, etc) as proposed in 2018 plan are included and that it’s not just a block of condos.

    • Car/traffic Links, no links to new development from Ritchie and Herman. 2. Height of buildings directly behind properties on Ritchie and Herman. 3. Location of Park. 4. Overall building heights (should conform to Avenue Study).

    • Building towering over us within stones throw. A public space that only serves the residents of the new development and even at that, a scaled down version.