Queen West failure shows city's faults
Nov. 11, 2006. 01:00 AM
CHRISTOPHER HUME
In any part of the city, the loss of a building like 48 Abell would be sad. But when it's in a neighbourhood that has declared itself open to development, it's doubly so.
The three-storey warehouse across from the Gladstone Hotel may not be an architectural landmark, but it is a local icon, a cultural institution and a centre of art, design, photography and all-round creativity. Its vitality demonstrates the validity of Jane Jacobs's famous observation that new ideas need old buildings — that is, innovation and cheap space are directly linked.
That didn't bother city council last September when it voted to allow the demolition of 48 Abell to make way for — what else? — a condo. It was an all-too-familiar act of self-destruction in a city that seems bent on its own demise.
To add insult to injury, earlier this year local residents sat down with some of the best architects and planners in town to devise a blueprint for growth in the area known as West Queen West.
These enlightened Torontonians, who call themselves Active 18, released a report last summer that spelled out exactly where the development opportunities are and are not. They even took the plan to Mayor David Miller and the city planning department, who seemed to like what they saw.
So far, the bulk of development — three schemes are being proposed — will be in the area bounded by Queen St. on the north, the railway tracks to the south and Abell and Sudbury on the east and west. This area, part of the Queen West Triangle, is ripe for revitalization and Active 18 recognized that. It assembled a team whose members include internationally respected planners and architects Ken Greenberg, Don Schmitt, Siamak Hariri and others. It addressed specific issues such as the creation of public spaces, pedestrian connectivity and how to retain the character of Queen St.
Despite these efforts, the result is a classic illustration of why the development process in Toronto doesn't work. Even those who support intensification, i.e., building highrise condos downtown, would have to agree this isn't the way to build a city. If anything, it is the way to destroy a city.
The point isn't to stop growth but to control it; in this regard the city has a record of abject failure.
The proposed towers are of the generic sort that could be anywhere. One plan would have 10-storey mixed-use buildings on Queen.
As with all such failures, the matter now rests with the Ontario Municipal Board, that unaccountable, quasi-judicial body that has final say over all development in this province. The board must decide the fate of three applications to build condo towers of various sizes up to 19 storeys. All in an area where height limits are much lower.
"Everyone knew development was going to occur in the triangle," Greenberg says. "What was stunning was that we had a neighbourhood that welcomed it."
A preliminary plan was drawn up last summer and Greenberg and activist Margie Zeidler took it to Miller. He instructed an assistant, Chris Phibbs, to help the group. But as Zeidler says, nothing happened.
City planners also responded with apparent enthusiasm but, again, it fell into the abyss.
In the meantime, the developers had grown tired of waiting for city hall, which had failed to respond to their applications within the 180-day limit.
The owners of 48 Abell, initially interested in converting the property into a live/work space and adding a fourth floor, approached the city for approval two years ago. They were told there were doubts it could be brought up to building code standards and that underground parking would have to be added. That's when development plans for 48 Abell were hatched. It was only a matter of time before the OMB got involved.
But as Greenberg points out: "Once you get to the OMB, it's already too late. It's going to be a second-rate outcome at best. But if the city spent a fraction of what's being spent on lawyers, maybe $1 million, the results would be infinitely better. The city is locked into an adversarial role and didn't even attempt to deal with the fact you have a number of different owners all developing at once. And I'm frankly disappointed the mayor's office didn't get more involved."
The terrible irony, of course, is that if the city — make that, the mayor — had demanded the players — planners, residents, developers — sit down and work out a deal, all would have come out ahead. Instead of consultation, however, the city reacted with hesitation then confrontation.
That's how a win-win turns into a lose-lose.
Christopher Hume can be reached at:
chume@thestar.ca
Christopher Hume can be reached at: chume@thestar.ca
No comments:
Post a Comment