Toronto waterfront residents say proposed 49-storey condo will be a ‘sore thumb’ in downtown neighbourhood

Since 1986, a seven-storey office tower has occupied a prime spot along Toronto’s waterfront on the southwest corner of Queens Quay – home to the Turkish consulate, a fitness studio and a sandwich shop, along with 10 other tenants.

If a proposed development application by real estate firm Arkfield Capital for the site at 10 Lower Spadina Avenue is approved, the unassuming building could be replaced by a 49-storey residential condo – taller than all others around it.

Area residents are perturbed by the idea of a 163-metre tower amid buildings that are largely between 16 to 38 storeys high and say it would be completely out of place in the neighbourhood.

A residents’ petition to oppose the development as it currently stands has garnered close to 1,300 signatures.

“We’re referring to it as the sore thumb building. It just looks ridiculous. It’s three or four times higher than its neighbour,” says Kathy Byrne, the petition’s creator.

Byrne along with fellow residents say the shadow cast by the tower will block out light for several lower buildings in the area, but their opposition isn’t based on sunlight and aesthetics alone.

“Traffic is a really serious issue. If you look at the building, you’ll notice that it has no land around it. There’s only a small alleyway. It goes into the back where their garbage collection is,” says Lesley Monette, one of the directors of the Bathurst Quay Neighbourhood Association (BQNA).

That alleyway between 10 Lower Spadina and the iconic King’s Landing building complex is also used by residents when moving in and out of apartments as well as the National Ballet’s Walter Carsen Centre to move sets and equipment.

“It is going to be not only congested in there, but when those trucks go in and try and come out, it’s going to be blocking the traffic. So we think that corner is just going to be totally chaotic and the traffic will back up on Spadina onto Lakeshore, where we already have gridlock,” adds Monette.

One petition supporter calls the development a “thoughtless, outrageous idea for this particular area along the waterfront.”

“This particular corner, with the single lane roadway east & west along Queen’s Quay & the streetcar lines going east/west & north/south at Lower Spadina/Queen’s Quay already creates a lot of traffic & pedestrian confusion,” says Nicola Egan.

Arkfiled Capital tells CityNews the development will not contribute to traffic at the already congested intersection.

“The existing driveway is to be maintained, with conditions improved by incorporating the loading operations into the proposed building. This will allow trucks and vehicles to turn around on-site, eliminating the need to reverse onto Queens Quay West,” they say in a statement.

In response to concerns about only 39 parking spots being planned for the proposed 511 residential units and 128 square metres of retail space, they say there are “ample transit facilities adjacent to, and within walking distance, of the lands.”

“The supporting traffic study has reviewed the traffic impacts and site circulation and determined that all area intersections are expected to operate at acceptable levels of service during existing and future conditions, even when accounting for background development activity,” they add.

Area locals like Monette, who have lived in the neighbourhood for more than 20 years, remain unconvinced that more than 1,000 potential new residents plus retail space will not add to traffic and congestion.

“What about all the contractors, the delivery trucks, the food vans? We have all kinds of people doing this all the time and they just don’t have any space for that,” she says.

Byrne adds that 75 per cent of the units are set to be one-bedroom condos, which she feels are not very family-friendly. Petition supporter Carolyn Johnson agrees.

“Tiny one-bedroom units are no good for anybody except, possibly, investors. We need homes, not chicken coops in the sky. We need more families in Bathurst Quay. I don’t mind the height and density, but the unit mix is all wrong. Do better,” she says.

“You kind of worry, is this going to be something that they want to sell to a lot of people to turn into Airbnbs?” adds Byrne.

“We have had a couple along here where that happened and it has just been a disaster with all kinds of problems.”

The City of Toronto’s Community Planning staff tells CityNews that the city’s guidelines “encourage developments to have a mix of unit types consisting of 15 per cent two-bedroom and 10 per cent three-bedroom units.”

Arkfield says their plan exceeds these requirements and includes 78 two-bedroom units (16 per cent of the total units), and 55 three-bedroom units (11 per cent of the total units).

“This is in addition to 156 one-bedroom plus den units (31 per cent of the total units) which could accommodate a second bedroom,” they say.

As far as the question of short-term rentals goes, city staff says those are regulated by City of Toronto bylaws and individual condo boards. Arkfield says as such, they don’t expect the potential use for short-term rentals to be any different from other buildings in the city.

The City of Toronto held a community consultation in January where residents also expressed other concerns including loss of privacy for other buildings in the area. With the tower potentially being the tallest in the neighbourhood so far, it will also require a zoning bylaw amendment, which raised some red flags for them.

Byrne says she’s concerned a change in the bylaw might set a precedent.

“If you let a 49-storey tower go up here, then what’s to stop the whole waterfront from becoming one giant wall of cement?” she says.

City staff are assuring residents that “any future development applications nearby will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.” If the zoning bylaw is amended for this tower, it will apply to this proposal alone.

However, the city says they understand residents’ concerns and the proposal will not be approved as is.

“Development Review staff have advised the applicant that the proposal is not supportable in its current form and have recommended revisions,” they tell CityNews in a statement.

“The City of Toronto has recommended several revisions to the proposal, including reducing the building height to better align with the existing context of the neighbourhood, increasing tower setbacks, minimizing shadow impacts on nearby parks and schoolyards, enhancing public realm elements, and adjusting the building’s massing to improve wind and sunlight conditions.”

Arkfield says they are reviewing the city’s suggestions “in order to determine an appropriate and comprehensive response.”

So far, they have not appealed the recommendations at the Ontario Land Tribunal.

In an email to Monette, Coun. Ausma Malik said “While the developer is under provincial right to appeal this application to the Ontario Land Tribunal, they have informed the city they will continue to discuss the application in the hopes of finding a resolution. Should conversations break down, we do expect an appeal would be imminent.”

“In my experience, developments in our growing neighbourhoods are most successful when applicants work with city staff and community members to build in alignment with priorities like essential housing, maximizing community benefit, and enhancing the character of our neighbourhoods,” Malik tells CityNews in a statement.

“I support the city’s community planning staff who are continuing to work with community members and the developer to come to a better proposal.”

In response to speculation of a provincial appeal, Arkfield says they cannot comment on the issue at this time.

“We hope to work with city staff, the local councillor, and other affected parties to reach a mutually agreeable solution for this site,” they say.

Meanwhile, as residents wait for modifications to the proposal, the petition opposing the development as it currently stands continues to garner support.

“And it’s not just from people around here, but [across the city]. They know that in the summertime, you want to come down here, we have all the tourists. This is a gorgeous place to be. And so they’re really concerned that all of that congestion is going to impede all of these other people being able to come down as well,” says Byrne.

“It’s always been the city’s policy that we get shorter as we get closer to the water, and there’s a reason for that. We want the waterfront to be accessible to the whole city.”