Yorkville

Identifying information:

• Name of association: Save Yorkville Heritage Association (SYHA)
• Name of director:  Name of Director or Contact person for your association
• Contact numbers phone/ fax/email: Contact numbers and email

Name and number of your Ward

Ward 28 Toronto Centre - Rosedale

Please name a development in your area that exemplifies good or bad planning.

• Developer: Menkes.
• Location: North East corner Yorkville and Bay Streets.

Where is the project and what is the project about?

Project is to replace existing Four Seasons Hotel one block to the west with a new 50-story condominium and hotel at Yorkville and Bay.  The first tower is 50 storeys in height (195m) the second tower is 30 storeys in height (89m). The project is located in a 12-18 storey mid-rise transitional area between the height peaks at the major intersections of Bloor/Yonge and Bloor/Bay and the small scale Villageof Yorkville.

What was City Council’s decision and what was the OMB’s decision?

City Council and the OMB approved the development.

What worked in the planning approval process and what didn’t work?

Planning/political issues were not resolved effectively or responsibly.

Problems with Process in Four Seasons Project.

• Project was submitted to City by a large development company, Menkes and one of Toronto’s most prominent, well-connected and respected citizens, Izzy Sharp.  It was submitted as an important stimulus to the economy of the City. The Planning Department was asked to review and advise on the merits of the application.
  
• The final City of Toronto Community Planning “Staff Report” concluded that “the development proposal contemplates buildings significantly in excess of the current planning permissions respecting height and density and that the proposal does not comply with the guidelines respecting  the “location of tall buildings” and “shadow impacts which are “not desirable”, but then finally concluded “the project to be acceptable” because it is near a subway, on a main street, supported by hard/soft services and addresses city intensification needs. The SYHA does not feel this justifies the massive exceptions Four Seasons was given to break the existing planning policies for the area .   The new Official Plan and the Bloor/Yorkville Urban Design guidelines speak clearly to the importance of massing buildings to frame adjacent streets, the need to respect street proportion and to create appropriate transitions in scale to neighbouring buildings.  The Four Seasons towers will be among the tallest in the City and will introduce financial district heights into a mid-rise transitional area adjacent to the Village of Yorkville.  All other new applications in the surrounding area are more than 80% lower than the Four Seasons development.  In addition, having researched other five star hotels in the City and other Four Season hotels internationally for the condominium component of the project, we find this development significantly in excess of a threshold for economic viability.

• The two towers of the Four Seasons development will shadow portions of the local public school and schoolyard every morning until 11.30 in addition to other parts of the community. Protecting the public realm is a basic planning principle. Despite opposition from the local school Council, the developer (under Section 37) paid 2 million dollars to the Toronto School Board. It appears to us that they bought the sun for generations of schoolchildren. Where are clear precise city standards on shadowing and the cumulative effects of shadowing in areas under intense pressure where many tall buildings are being constructed?
  

• To us, there appears to be no coherent/consistent system for deciding how much developers should give in Section 37. Who in the City decides those amounts and based on what economic analysis? In the Four Seasons project there appeared to be a large gap between what the developers gained and what the community lost: sun, livability, consistency of built context and character.

• In general, our area feels that Section 37 benefits are used as a tool for developers to gain greater height and density. This does not fit with the community who often think the original density/height being asked for is too much.   In addition, there is little meaningful public discussion and consensus on what  Section 37 monies should/could be used for in the community.
  

• Despite the efforts of the working committee, there was no meaningful discussion of building design. The community was often dismissed as “non experts” and assured the developer had hired a name architect following which we were to assume design excellence. We think The Four Seasons is a very unremarkable building (except for its height) that will do little to improve Toronto 's mediocre landscape.
  

• From their perspective, area residents felt the working committee was not effective. The local councillor chaired the group. Despite efforts of the community to discuss the central issues of scale and design at the front end of the process, it was insisted that they first discuss the details of the development such as entrancing/exiting, loading, parking, retail, heritage, sidewalks, transportation, garbage etc. When these had all been discussed and decided, there was little room or ability to question the basic principles of scale and community fit. In addition, on several occasions the community asked for the wind studies, but never did see them during that process . And, they are disturbing. There will be an approximate 300% increase in “uncomfortable wind locations” on the local streets during the spring and summer.

• The project was initially positioned as of great economic importance to the City: “We can’t afford to lose the Four Seasons”.   The community questioned this economic rationale since the Four Seasons had been in the area – one block away – for the last 15 years.  Keeping the head office in Toronto was always a laudable objective, but a fragile one with new global conglomerates coming in as partners and owners.  The real economic downside was the inevitable increase in value of the surrounding land when the city gave this large amount of extra density.  The new land values precluded many of the current colourful, smaller, more eclectic independent owners from staying in the area due to increased rents and consequently brought in the big multi-national chains like Roots, Gucci etc.   Did we really want the streets lined with the banality and homogeneity of cookie cutter Christian Dior boutiques?  The community said “no”, feeling it would fracture the character of the area and what draws people to it.  With the area over gentrified, the community worried that it would become rich, not real, and certainly not a diverse, vibrant, livable neighbourhood; and by the same token, that the heightened cost of land would force new owners on Bay Street to demolish the existing  fabric and  build their own 50 storey buildings.  The community felt these were the “real” economic impacts of approving the Four Seasons proposal and ones that would rupture the existing livable mid-rise community.

How would you change the planning process to make it better ?

• The City Planning Department should work with community constituencies to first develop a Secondary Plan and then a new meaningful zoning by-law that would reflect and give precision to the Official Plan.  It is critical to give developers and the community the stability, clarity and consistency they both seek.  Since the area is under intense development pressure, the new Plan and accompanying By-Law should be completed within 12 months and equally importantly, an interim control by-law be put in place until the new By- Law is completed.
• The City must remove the politicians from the site-specific development  approval process.  Set up a Planning Commission of five to seven arms-length professionals in the field of planning and design for each quadrant of the City. This group would be charged with deciding the suitability of projects in their area with a clear set of criteria.  It is crucial they be above city politics and able to bring a wider perspective and longer term understanding to each project.
• Community participation and the working group process needs rethinking to ensure it is chaired by a neutral party and provides a better mechanism for dialogue. More community based planning. Less politically based planning.
• A design review subpanel should be set up as part of the commission to look at both architectural design and urban design.
• The City Planning Department should work with the Economic Development Department to devise a more systematic and financially calibrated Section 37 system.    Look at development pro formas, and evaluate the equity that is at play so the City and the community get a more balanced and consistent quid pro quo.  Focus on the increase in land value and how that is to be shared.  Keep it out of the hands of the politicians. See Seattle and Vancouver among others. Re-examine the overall role Section 37 plays in the development process.  Think about getting rid of it all together.