245-251 College Street

About the project

Letters from community groups

From the Grange Community Association

14 January 2011

To: Toronto East York Community Council

Re: Agenda Item 3.20 – Preliminary Rezoning Application for 245-251 College Street and 39-40 Glasgow Street, Toronto

I am writing on behalf of the Grange Community Association (GCA).  This proposal was discussed at our meeting on January 12, 2011.

The GCA does not support this proposal.

The proposed 42-storey tower is not in keeping with the character of the South East Spadina area. It is too tall and does not respect the existing character or proportions of surrounding buildings.  Moreover, this proposal can be viewed as institutional expansion that will bring a large transient population of students into what is primarily a residential community.

May I ask that this letter be included in the materials pertaining to this item.

Yours truly,

Ralph Daley

President
Grange Community Association

12 February 2011

To the City Clerk:

Please be advised that further to the submission made by the GCA to the January meeting of the TEYCC, the Grange Community Association remains totally opposed to the development application as submitted for 245-251 College Street.

We recognise and support the efforts to provide student housing. However, this proposal is perhaps the most insensitive and "out of control" proposal that has ever been presented for the South East Spadina planning district in the four decades that I have lived here.

The height and massing of this development at 42 stories pays no attention to its context and will a create harmful precedent for both College Street and Spadina Avenue

Having discussed this proposal with other residents' associations that surround the University of Toronto campus, I can say that all are completely mystified by the secrecy of the arrangements between the developer and the university. As well, given the university's stated direction of increasing undergraduate programs at its Missisauga and Scarborough campuses, this proposal does not appear to be in sync with that objective.

Given the possible impact of this proposal, the area for notification and the groups to be notified must be expanded beyond that recommended by the planning report.

Finally, it is our view that this application should be withdrawn, the application fees should be refunded and the developer should be asked to re-submit a respectful proposal.

Ceta Ramkhalawansingh

Honorary President

Grange Community Association

62 Beverley Street

Toronto ON

M5T 1X9

From the Harbord Village Residents' Association

13 February 2011

To: Toronto-East York Community Council
Re Item: 4.33 245-251 College St.

The Harbord Village Residents’ Association supports the planning report in opposition to this application and urges a further deferral of this matter because it directly impacts not just neighbourhoods, but the entire University of Toronto St. George campus and all the neighbourhoods that surround it.

The University of Toronto is a public institution. It owns the land, has entered into a lease arrangement with the developer, stands to profit from the development, yet refuses to publicly endorse this building proposal that would put a 42-storey tower, mid-block, in a 2.5 storey neighbourhood.

To date, there has been no transparency on the part of the University on the nature of its lease and arrangements with the private developer. Indeed, the University refuses to divulge these agreements, saying the developer has bound it by a confidentiality clause. When the University will not publicly support the rezoning that it, as owner, is requesting, this is an aberrant process. At the very least, the University should appear before you as the true applicant and should advocate for 42 storeys. This is important because the City is bound by transparency rules and should require the same of public institutions appearing before it.

Second, just as this development by the University is brought forward by its surrogate, the University is also engaged with residents on rezoning of the entire St. George campus.

Good faith negotiations have been underway between the University, the councillor and neighbours, for more than a year to redraft the St. George Campus Part II plan, which anticipates the creation of many new building sites on campus―all of which could be impacted by this proposal. But the lands outside the campus boundaries, owned by the University―lands that could impact the part II planning—have been excluded from those deliberations. In view of this application, this is contrary to the public interest.

Third, this is the first of many anticipated private-public partnerships on and around the St. George campus of the University of Toronto. It sets a precedent for the University’s plans to expand the Victorian building to be occupied by the Faculty of Architecture at 1 Spadina Circle, and developments to the north on Spadina. Getting the rules right on private-public accountability is essential, otherwise all public institutions will be able to shield themselves from responsibility for proposals set forth by their partners.

Finally, it is essential to have a contextual plan or Visioning Study for College Street and environs. The University, neighbours and the City began exploring ways of going about this at the last University of Toronto Area Liaison Committee meeting on January 25, 2011. All parties agree a plan is not only desireable, but necessary.

We need a time out.

We believe the project should be deferred until:

  1. the University of Toronto, as owner of the property, has publicly declared its support of the proposal before you in all its detail;
  2. lease arrangements undertaken by the University with the developer are made public, and
  3. transparent and open public consultations have taken place with neighbours, the City, the Councillor, the University and the developer and the plan modified to ensure the the stability of the surrounding neighbourhoods;
  4. until a proper avenue or visioning study of College Street, particularly the College/Spadina intersection, examining but not restricted to, massing, heights, neighbourhood transitions, density, and Heritage, is complete.

We cannot afford to get development in this part of Toronto wrong.

With respect,

Sue Dexter
Board
Harbord Village Residents' Association

Rory Gus Sinclair
Chair
Harbord Village Residents' Association

From the Huron Sussex Residents' Association

15 February 2011

To: Toronto-East York Community Council
Re Item: 4.33 245-251 College St.

The Huron Sussex Residents Organization (HSRO) is opposed to this application, and supports the City of Toronto planning report. We are concerned about its impact on the surrounding neighbourhoods for the following reasons:

  • The building height is way out of proportion to other buildings in the area, and will set an inappropriate precedent for height and density for the area before a proper visioning study for College Street, between University Avenue and Bathurst, is initiated and completed.
  • We have concerns about the lack of transparency with respect to the agreement between the University of Toronto, which wants to lease the land to the developer, and the developer.

Therefore, we urgently request a further deferral of this matter until the above concerns have been addressed.

For many years, the HSRO, along with the other residents organizations for the neighbourhoods that surround the University, through a City-University Liaison Committee, mandated by the City of Toronto, have held ongoing discussions with the University about its development projects and their possible impact on our neighbourhoods. Currently, this includes discussion of rezoning of development sites in the Part II plan for the University precinct. The transparency with which these discussions are held is in stark contrast to what has happened to date with this development proposal. If the University wants to enter into partnerships or lease arrangements with private developers, we expect the same level of transparency in discussions of such projects, particularly as they may set inappropriate precedents for rezoning of University institutional lands to non-institutional uses, which is what this project may do.

A deferral to allow time to address these critical issues is essential.

Sincerely,

David Powell
President
Huron Sussex Residents Organization

Julie Mathien
Vice-President
Huron Sussex Residents Organization

In the news