Tag Archives: Ward 19

A Better Bathurst

Posted on by
1

Anybody who’s spent much time in Toronto has at least heard of Bathurst Street. The nearly 60 kilometre stretch of road, bathurststreetrunning from the island airport ferry terminal on Lake Ontario, all the way north up to Holland Marsh. (If Wikipedia is to be trusted.) It demarcates the western edge of the official downtown area of Toronto.

To many, Bathurst Street is probably loathed more than it is loved. But for some of us who cross it daily, we see it as the thinking man’s Spadina Avenue. We do. Trust me.

In actual fact, Bathurst Street is pretty much nothing more than a big line on a map. It offers space to get people to where they’re going. There’s little else it offers up, frankly.

And to tell you the truth, it doesn’t do that very effectively. It’s not much fun to walk. It’s a bit of a terror to cycle and I’m not even referring to the Davenport hill. Congestion frequently clogs it, making it joyless to travel by car, bus or streetcar.

On top of which, Bathurst Street is regularly undergoing massive road work. Regularly. Like I’m talking 2, 3 times a season.

Poor ol’ Bathurst Street.bathurstbus

So when news came last year that the city had brought in a development moratorium along a 3 kilometre portion of the street from Dupont down to Queen in order to conduct a built form and land use study, it was welcome news to many. Hoo-rah! Maybe we can make something of this ratty, tatty, rag tag strip of pavement.

The timing wasn’t coincidental to the fact that plans were already in the works for the former site of Kromer Radio on the west side of Bathurst between College and Dundas. A big box store development that had caught the unhappy attention of nearby residents and businesses including those in Kensington Market a few blocks to the east. There were also rumblings of the sale (now done) and eventual redevelopment of the iconic Honest Ed’s at the corner of Bathurst and Bloor Street.

It’s also worth noting that south of the study area, south of Queen on Bathurst, zoning permits building heights of 50 metres, I believe I heard. Towers are rising there. bathurststreet1This study was intended to set rules in place that would help keep that kind of scale from creeping north into substantially more residential parts of the street.

On Monday night, there was a community meeting held (the fourth, I believe) to discuss the plan as it was to date, and to give a staff report including a third-party retail report. The chairs were mostly full. I’m never good at these estimations but there had to be 17 million people in attendance. (For all you Father Ted fans out there.) I don’t know, a couple hundred? A hundred and fifty? A hundred.

A healthy number, let’s just say on a cold Monday night. The tone, as with most of these kinds of meetings dealing with development, was politely tense. Maybe not tense. Edgy? Suspicious?

Politely tight in a non-alcoholic way although somebody had the nerve to bring in their dinner from Harbord Fish and Chips. Seriously. dougalIf you don’t have enough to share with the entire room. That’s going to fray some nerves.

Councillor Adam Vaughan, whose Ward 20 is bordered on its west by much of the Bathurst study area, stressed that what he was looking for was a street defined by the communities living on either side of it. That sounds good in theory, very participatory and all democracy in action, but also might endorse a little of some not in my back door-ism. Intensification, like an increase use of public transit, always seems like a very good idea for other places, other people.

Although, to be fair, there was not a whole lot of that in evidence at this meeting. People, by and large, seemed curious is a very cautious way, asking questions largely about very specific ideas put forth by city staff. Overt antagonism only manifested itself a couple times. There were none of the aggressive outbursts I’ve witnessed at similar community consultation meetings. This is a part of town not entirely alien to the notion of intensification.

It is early in the process, however.

One bothersome note for me, though, was the subtle framing of the question: “How do we protect our neighbourhood?” The underlying implication of that is a place under siege by change. bathurststreet2There was no feeling of embracing the positive possibilities that might come with an attempt to alter the current streetscape of Bathurst. Of course, things could be made worse along the street. But how exactly, proposed increases in building height in some places to 6 stories from current practice of 3 to 4 on most of this strip would do that is beyond me at this point.

OK. There’s one that springs immediately to mine. A lack of thorough transit studies to accompany these reports might prove to be problematic in the long run. I, for one, was somewhat shocked that there was little to no money set aside as part of this study. How can you do a proper built form and land use study without a full traffic impact analysis?

Anyone who travels or lives anywhere near the study area (I’m a block west from the Kromer radio site where it looks to be the most intense spot of redevelopment) knows what a traffic nightmare that stretch of Bathurst can be throughout much of the day. bathurststreetcarAmidst all the seeming non-stop construction, it’s a mixed use mess of cars, trucks, streetcars and buses, non-advanced left turns, parking, parking and more parking. A combination that leaves little space for bikes or even peaceful strolls.

Whatever manner you use to negotiate Bathurst it’s ultimately just a case of head down and gettin’ `er done and over with.

To talk about further intensification without a proper and vigorous traffic study seems to me to relegate the whole exercise meaningless. More people, more businesses that only succeed in bringing more traffic in the form of cars will in no way make that portion of Bathurst any more desirable a setting to traverse than it is now.

During the great Walmart debate on the Kromer Radio location, there was much chatter about NIMBY elitism with a measure of class conflict thrown in for good measure. My opposition to the proposal, which bore no direct imposition on my dwelling, was more aesthetic and concerned about the effect on the surrounding street life. cmonIt represented a huge failure of imagination from my perspective.

Big box store developments don’t tend to enhance the neighbourhood, especially if they abide by outdated parking requirements. The initial traffic study for the proposal was laughable. Three hundred+ parking spots, underground, with only one entrance that would also serve for deliveries? In an already congested point on the road? Along a route where a streetcar runs and two more lines to the north and south, both less than a 5 minute walk?

I mean, C’MON!

Look, with all the access to public transit in this study area — 4 streetcar lines, 2 bus routes, 1 subway stop – it is a place ripe for further intensification. bathurstcondoIt is a place already undergoing intensification. There is much to like in the report so far.

But if we don’t get the traffic flow right, if we continue to adhere to outdated ideas of planning in terms of what transportation modes are given priority, we’re just going to succeed in making a mess even messier. Let’s not have to endure Bathurst Street any more than we already do.

— hopefully submitted by Cityslikr

Coming Soon To A Neighbourhood Near You

Posted on by
2

It’s funny what escapes your notice when you’re looking at the bigger picture. With casinos, transit battles, a general mayoral malaise keeping my mind focussed on city wide issues, I completely missed this for months, right in my back yard. Well, OK. Not right in my backyard. My front yard, actually, and then across the street and into the nearby alley.

RioCan has descended on the west side of Bathurst Street, almost smack dab in the middle of the block between College and Dundas Streets. Nearly 100 metres of storefront, according to the National Post last October (Last October?! Where the hell was I?) and 13, 000 square metres and 3 tall stories of retail-ly goodness. Hanging over right there in my neighbours’ backyards.

Hoo-rah! My first development battle as a homeowner. You will build there over my cold, dead body!

Now, I don’t think anyone would deny that this particular strip could use some sort of facelift. It is a drab run of real estate, shabbily occupying space south of a beer store and incorporating some industrial looking buildings (including Kromer Radio, a local institution that’s been in its current location since 1974) and ending with a parking lot. Largely uninspiring, long in the tooth, somewhat decrepit even, yeah sure, let’s do something with it, gussy things up a little.

But seriously? A generic box store thingie? Really? That’s the best anyone could come up with? As the plan stands right now, RioCan has tossed a bone to local residents and businesses, giving the ground floor to small retail outlets – A Little Kensington Market Just Steps From The Heart Of Kensington Market! – while keeping the upper two floors for the type of franchise they usually favour. Loblaws? Walmart? Target?

Yes, there are probably areas of the city, neighbourhoods where such kind of stores would fit in even less. But not many. If it goes grocery, why? Kensington Market is 5 minutes away. There’s a Metro supermarket about a twenty minute walk west along College Street. For that matter, RioCan’s new development featuring a massive Loblaws is 15 minutes to the south-east by foot at Queen and Portland.

As for some sort of department store? Again, Queen Street West is a hop, skip and a jump away. If you can’t find what you need there, get on the Queen streetcar and arrive at the Eaton’s Centre in fifteen minutes or so.

This kind of development in this area of the city seems so unnecessary, redundant and not just a little intrusive.

The back of the building, ranging in proposed height anywhere from 21 to 24 metres will loom over an alley and, I imagine, similar to its front footing, nearly 100 metres or so of backyards. Aside from the usual issue of shadowing and blocking out of the morning light which the plans attempt to alleviate with the use of some setbacks, as it stands on paper right now, all the building’s mechanicals – heating, cooling etc. – impose themselves on the row of houses to the west, promising residents a motorized symphony of humming, belching and farting not just morning until evening but all through the night.

It also essentially cuts off the east-west pedestrian flow. Where you can now make your way through an alley off Markham Street through the parking lot on Nassau Street across Bathurst and into the middle of Kensington Market, those on foot or bike will have to head up either to almost College or down to Dundas in order to move make the trip. This isn’t simply about inconvenience. Essentially the building will act as a barrier between the eastern boundary of Little Portugal/Italy and the western edge of Kensington Market, serving as a division between the two neighbourhoods.

Now, I’m no Shawn Micallef but I’d say that’s just flat out bad planning. Shouldn’t the idea be to integrate development into its surrounding area? To fill in a missing piece of the puzzle in order to promote proper and sustainable neighbourhood growth? Instead, RioCan proposes to bulk down an edifice on its landing pad like a Death Star, sucking all life forms into itself.

And then there’s the vehicular traffic.

As anyone who’s ever travelled that portion of Bathurst Streets knows, whether by car, streetcar, bike or foot, it already can be a nightmare. Now RioCan wants to introduce some 300 or so underground parking spots into the mix at one entry point (for both customers and delivery trucks) at the south of the development. So picture this, a regular stream of northbound cars on Bathurst, further snarling up traffic, waiting to make a left turn into the parking lot. The southbound right lane bottles up traffic in that direction, waiting to make their way in.

Right now, cars exiting the street level parking lot on that spot are prohibited from turning left onto Bathurst or going straight onto Nassau. The proposal wants two lanes of exiting traffic, north and south but it’s not difficult to imagine drivers, seeing the mess on Bathurst will push straight forward into Kensington Market in an attempt to escape the madness. A radiating circle of traffic snarls in a location already burdened by them.

That the initial traffic impact study submitted was rejected by the city is telling. One of the reasons given, apparently, was that the study didn’t look at traffic patterns on Saturdays, a seemingly egregious oversight since, you know, we’re talking retail here. Saturdays are kind of their go-to time, aren’t they? It causes one to wonder if RioCan was trying to avoid a serious discussion about what could turn out to be a major, major sticking point.

“What I can tell is the result of broader retailers’ desire to locate in the core,” RioCan vice president Jordan Robins said last fall, “is that they had to adjust their prototypical format to suit an urban environment.” He talked of a ‘seismic shift in retail development’ in order to adapt what is typically a suburban approach to an urban setting. Yet there’s little evidence of any sort of shift in mindset with this particular development. It still caters to car dependency in an area surrounding on 3 sides by public transit. The proposed building imposes itself rather than blends in or compliments its surroundings. If one of the usual RioCan tenants sign on as the signature outlet, it’ll bring almost nothing new or original to the area.

Despite their bland assurances to the contrary, it seems like RioCan is attempting to adjust the urban environment to their prototypical format rather than the other way around. Hardly surprising then when they meet with the inevitable resistance from local residents and business. Being a bad neighbour will tend to elicit that response.

— residently submitted by Cityslikr

The Real Swing Factor In Trinity-Spadina

Posted on by
7

[Yesterday our email inbox contained a message that so nailed how we were feeling about the federal campaign going on in our riding that, with the author’s permission, we wanted to share it with all of you. Plus, it gave us the day off to head out and enjoy our lovely spring weather.]

*  *  *

I am exasperated!

Today I read yet another article about how the Liberals and the NDP both need to court the centre-right condo vote in order to win Trinity-Spadina. But the “conservative condo vote” has been mentioned for almost a decade as a swing factor, only to disappear when the votes are counted. It is a cliché and it is wrong.

The real swing voters in Trinity-Spadina are independent progressives.

The NDP does not own the progressive vote in Trinity-Spadina, and cannot take it for granted. Many progressives grimaced as the NDP dithered over the long gun registry, or adopted the Tory anti-tax talking points on the Green Shift, or called for cheaper fossil fuels, or sided with conservative unionists who fear environmentalism costs jobs. These progressives really like Olivia Chow, but they also worry that the NDP is perhaps less a party of urbanists and environmentalists, and more that of culturally-conservative rural unionists who think Toronto pinkos can go to hell.

These swing progressives are the people who voted for Adam Vaughan over the NDP-endorsed Helen Kennedy municipally in Ward 20 (Jack Layton had reportedly threatened to “bury” Vaughan if he ran against Kennedy – nice!). These are also the people who voted for Karen Sun over Jack Layton’s son in Ward 19 last year. These alone represent about 12,000 T-S votes, or one-fifth of the voting electorate. These are the people who will decide the results in Trinity-Spadina, not the “conservative condo vote.”

And yet the condo cliché remains. Here’s the Toronto Star talking to Sean McCormick, an inexperienced Fordesque fiscal conservative who had been bizarrely endorsed by the federal Liberal T-S riding association in last fall’s municipal election for Ward 19 councillor. Not only did McCormick place third, even with the supposedly-mighty conservative condo vote, he was so incompetent that he defaulted on his campaign financials, the only front-running council candidate in the City to do so. (Liberal donors to McCormick’s campaign: according to City bylaw, this default means you are no longer eligible for the City’s 75% donation rebate). Bad enough that these Liberals endorsed an incompetent candidate, but the real stupidity is that they are chasing after conservative voters in Trinity-Spadina, and not progressives.

Clearly, the T-S Liberal riding association is still gripped by the dead hand of Tony Ianno, who was the Liberal MP from 1993-2006. He is famous around here for the contrast between his ruthless hold on power locally, and his lack of presence in Parliament. In 1988, he pioneered some disgraceful practices in the nomination process, practices that William Johnston said “strike at the legitimacy of the most fundamental process of our democratic system.” In 1996, as the feds were turning over harbour commissions to municipalities elsewhere, Ianno fought to create the Toronto Port Authority and put it under federal control. One of its first acts was to sue the City of Toronto for a billion dollars, and the TPA has been a continuous “fuck you” to the city ever since. In 2003, Ianno also pioneered new ways of getting around his own party’s campaign finance law, by creating a secret trust fund that was described in the Montreal Gazette as “a recipe for corruption.” In 2006, he shut down campus polls at U of T, the same thing Iggy slammed the Tories for doing in Guelph. To top it off, Ianno now faces stock manipulation charges.

After this Liberal stronghold fell to the NDP in 2006, you might have hoped the Trinity-Spadina riding association would seek a fresh face who could win back progressive Liberal voters. Next door, in Parkdale-High Park, the Liberals replaced a similarly defeated, similarly uninspiring Liberal with progressive Gerard Kennedy, who was able to defeat the popular and hard-working NDP MP Peggy Nash and retake the riding (some people say, “what a waste,” but why shouldn’t voters get to choose between good candidates?). You might also have thought the T-S riding association would be especially sensitive to the fact that their former MP was now facing an OSC probe during a recession caused by securities shenanigans.

Instead, just weeks before the 2008 election, the Liberals replaced their irritating former MP with Christine Innes, the MP’s wife. If you’re a registered Liberal but can’t remember when you agreed to this nomination, it is because you were not exactly asked. The couple apparently decided this between themselves. “It’s my time,” said Innes. This reminds me of how Andersen Consulting changed its name to Accenture following the Enron scandal.

The role of a riding association generally does not come up in election coverage. And perhaps the distastefulness of the Ianno/Innes family compact is simply how the sausages are made. Voters are also expected to vote for the party and not the local representative. But who advocates for the community’s priorities in a party’s caucus if not the MP? Who sets the direction of a party in Parliament if not its caucus? And as the TPA issue shows, federal politics can indeed be local. MPs matter.

Christine Innes seems quite nice, and she is not her husband. But she is not a fresh start either, and her riding association’s overtures to hard-right fiscal conservatives should worry Liberal progressives. Is Ms. Innes herself centre-right politically, or does she just think the voters are? Either way, how can progressives trust her?

Why won’t the Liberals nominate a progressive in this progressive riding? Where’s our Gerard Kennedy? Where’s our Martha Hall Findlay?

It’s time to drop the conservative condo cliché, and its time for the Liberal riding association to pull its head out of Tony Ianno’s ass. Independent progressives are the real swing voters in Trinity-Spadina, and we are the ones who should be courted.

— submitted by John Bowker