#9106 - Oct 1991

Digital Archiving Completed by the Ethnography Lab, A University of Toronto Anthropology Initiative
and Produced in Collaboration with David Perlman/Wholenote Media Inc between July-December 2015.
Page eight, Kensington Market Drum October 1991
HOUSING ON
continued from page 5
LEONARD
Furthermore, we know that the
upper storeys of a building are just
as substantial as the lower ones,
even if one painted them blue with
clouds.
Other threats followed. We would
be opposing the City's policy of
densification if we objected to the
scheme and if we delayed it at all
the parking garage would be in
danger of collapse and the funds
for the co-op housing would evaporate.
. These threats are as spurious as the
health-cost story. Densification of
the city is a good principle but it is
bizarre to use it as an argument to
destroy a neighbourhood of closely-packed,
well established
houses--even historic houses--when
there are so many locations on
nearby main streets where such a
strategy would be most appropriate.
The schedule for approving
schemes is entirely a product of the
hospital and its consultants. Deteriorating
parking garages can sometimes,
with a little help, last for
may years and housing money
comes and goes with the seasons.
We also have a vested interest in
action, but our responsibility as
citizens is to make sure of the
quality of things which get built.
Once built they are the legacy we
offer to our children and
grandchildren and no excuse like
" ... well we had to get it to Committee
by July ... " mitigates a built
mistake.
WE PREFER . HOUSES TO
PARKING GARAGES
WE DO NOT LIKE INCREASED
HEALTH COSTS
but we are not willing to approve
third-rate developments in a rush
simply to satisfy these goals.
Two separate but related issues
emerge from all this:
• housing on Leonard A venue
• the development process
Housing on Leonard Avenue
This is a a family-residential area.
Thee basic types are two and three
storey ground related houses. We
· can accept larger buildings. Our
major institutions--hospitals,
churches and schools--have traditionallY'
been allowed more bulk
and along the main thoroughfares--Spadina,
Bathurst, College,
Dundas, for example--a case can
be made for larger commercial
buildings. There is however no
precedent (except the bad neighbourhood-breaking
ones of the
seventies)· for increasing the innerblock
residential scale to this
degree.
The hospital has wisely located its
bulk away from the residential
streets. Good. We accept its large
scale (although not happily when it
reaches 16 floors and more) as if it
were our local cathedral. But there
seems absolutely no justification
for breaking all previous conclusions
about the nature of the
residential area.
The city of Toronto has built many
new forms of housing in the past
two decades so there is plenty of
precedent to consider. We could
for example look a few blocks east
to Henry and Baldwin. Here we
have medium density housing
which has quite a lot of ground
related units but seems to be just
about as big as you would ever
want to get if you are not going to
overwhelm your house neighbours.
It is five storeys,m and the lowest
one is below ground level.
Leonard Avenue should certainly
be no bigger--perhaps the hospitals
consultants could learn from this
and other local examples and those
residents not familiar with drawing
could use such buildings to understand
the possibilities.
Compatibility with the neighbourhood
is not a matter of cleverly
coloured drawings. If one looks at
the streets and building in the
vicinity it's clear that the height
and density limits proposed by the
city are intelligent and well-considered.
To exceed . these in any
way needs careful consideration of
the specific proposal--its profile, its
setback, its materials and detail.
Nothing like the present proposa! is
likely to be acceptable.
This is not to say, however, that
there aren't some useful beginnings
in the proposal. Its concern for
street line, for open space and for
lower heights to the east are all
commendable.
The recent report by the commissioner
of planning and development
is clear and to the point. The
hospital has present no compelling
reason to break the present development
rules. Some of the bases of
their design (traffic generation, for
example) are still flimsy and they
have ignored both local opinion
and the evidence of their own
eyes.
The development process
Threats anq misrepresentation are
not a good basis for mutual
respect. Show and tell is not consultation.
The hospital has apparently
not yet learned how to participate
in a planning process
which resects local needs. We in
the community are sympathetic to
the financial difficulties facing all
healthcare facilities--it is after all
our taxes which pay for them--but
they cannot be primary ion this
discussiOn. Building an eight storey
building on Leonard Avenue is an,
inconsequential drop in the longterm
bucket of the provincial economy.
In the meantime we have a
neighbourhood to protect and we
will not accept panic deadlines for
short term "fixes" if they jeopardize
the neighbourhood.
There must be time allowed to get
together a group of reasonable
people to consider the needs of the
hospital, the City and the Community
and to come up with propo·
sals which reflect the values of all
these parties. The latest round ol
meetings has destroyed some of tht
confidence and optimism previous·
ly present and the sooner the pro·
cess is reformed, the sooner wt
can expect constructive results.
ELEc·n
JL DATES TO WATCH I 70ctob :oo er ON 29 'S 1 ~ l\'111 1'1\
. u Collr Prn' iuesd ~ '·'y;...- !"
d 23 L and t Corn ' Sc ay at ·· =+- 1
~-Nt~onesda'ls\ i~\l
. uef 9 an estef" , S:ntr~ ===!h.~-~- ==~~~L===~
==~'
are Sandernunity addin
\jllo!\