Welcome to the website for the Trefann Court Residents Association.

This website is maintained as a historic record of developments and changes affecting this neighbourhood. Scroll down to read the newest posts, or use menu links:
– to choose posts for a particular category eg. Shuter St, or
– for a list of all posts, by year (“latest posts“).
For most images on this site, clicking will display a larger version.

The Trefann Court Association hasn’t been active for several years, but it could be re-started anytime there are several local residents who are interested and want to get involved. Some new items of local interest are still being added to this site.

Email us with your comments or questions.

Posted in advocacy | Comments Off on Welcome!

Section 37

In March 2024, Ward 13 Councillor Moise spent $275,000 in community improvements: $80k for tree guards and $150k for planters; $3.2k for bike parking and $1.8k for heritage street signs; $40k for painted pedestrian crossings. Prior Section 37 spending in Ward 13 included $300k to rename Yonge-Dundas Square (Jan 2024), $1m for Anishnawbe Health Toronto’s Indigenous Community Hub (Oct 2023), $19.2k for Bell utility box murals (Aug 2023), $350k for a new sidewalk (June 2023), $500k for Dixon Hall revitalization (March 2023), $250k for a statue of Councillor Pam McConnell (May, 2021) and $1.04m for Bike Share (2019).

Most were useful community improvements, but where did the money come from? Section 37 funds! How much money is left to spend? Who knows! Is there a report detailing Section 37 community benefit spending in each ward, by year? Apparently not; one has to dig through minutes of each City Council meeting for every instance where spending of Section 37 cash was authorized. The only Section 37 reporting the city provides now is an Open Data report. That report shows Section 37 promised cash benefits for Ward 13, by decade, total $136m, 37 projects (2020-2023) and $145m, 84 projects (2010-2019). (See note)

Source: Section 37 reports for 2013-14, 2016-18 and 2019.
Ward 13 (map) was created in Oct 2018, by combining most of the former Ward 27 (map) and Ward 28 (map). At year-end 2018, Ward 13 was allotted 60% of the Section 37 cash from Wards 27 and 28.

Section 37 cash is paid by developers to the city when construction starts, typically a few years after the project was approved by City Council. Payments are sometimes made in instalments according to a negotiated schedule; sometimes benefit amounts are indexed to inflation (so funds received could be greater than shown in Open Data). But no cash is received if an approved project doesn’t get built. Open Data shows dates and cash benefit amounts (ie. amounts promised), but there is no data when or how much cash was actually received for each development. In previous years, the city made some attempt to report Section 37 cash expenditures, remaining balances, and interest earned, for each ward.

The city has received a lot of cash for Section 37 benefits; as of Dec 2019, Ward 13 had an unspent balance of $84m (city total was $328m). To justify spending to rename Dundas Square, Councillor Moise explained: Section 37 funds “are not tax dollars” (Toronto Sun, Feb 2024); however, public reporting of Section 37 spending is equally important, as the city’s reporting of its spending of public tax and fees revenue (via the annual budget).


What is Section 37? Until August 2023, Section 37 density bonusing permitted the City to grant developers an increase in permitted height and/or density via rezoning, in return for community benefits. Benefit amounts (cash and in-kind) were negotiated for each development by city planning and the local councillor. Initially there were no standards to guide benefit amounts, relying on the councillor’s negotiating skill and creativity. (Jan 2015, Toronto Star). After a development is approved by City Council, the Section 37 benefits are considered “secured”: the developer has a legal obligation to provide those benefits at a future date, if/when the development proceeds. The spending of these funds is largely directed by the local councillor to fund projects in their ward. Toronto’s official plan lists some typical Section 37 benefits as public art, parks, housing and heritage conservation. (Smaller amounts, called Section 45 community benefits, were also received by the city from developers, where the Committee of Adjustment adds a condition on the approval of a minor variance to the zoning by-law.

After Aug 2023, the density bonusing process was replaced by a 4% community benefits charge (CBC) for developments.)

Section 37 reporting: The city published detailed Section 37 reports for 2013-14, 2016-18 and 2019. No report for 2015.
2013-14: shows total promised cash benefits, and total cash received. No breakdown by ward. No info on cash spending.
2016-18: shows cash received from developers, interest earned, expenditures by ward; details of every expenditure; reserve fund cash balances at year end (for previous 44 wards, and restated for the current 25 wards)
2019: (report with appropriate detail/completeness) shows cash-in-lieu community benefits secured; details of every expenditure; cash received from developers, interest earned, expenditures; reserve fund cash balances at year-end; and in-kind benefits received in that year.
• 2020-2022: No info provided by the city. When asked for more recent Section 37 data for 2020-2022, the city provided only a very high level summary of secured benefits (the same info as contained in Open Data).

Open Data: In 2021, Councillor Ainslie recommended that Section 37 details be published on Open Data, including Community Benefit Expenditures, and Balances and Interest Earned on all Section 37 and Section 45 Reserve Funds. But so far, no details on cash received, expenditures or account balances appear in Open Data.

Section 37 Open Data lists details on the Community Benefits secured via the legacy Section 37 from 1984-2023, for the 25 wards (curiously, there is no data for 1985 or 1995). Ward boundaries have changed several times in the past 40 years; presumably historical data is categorized according to the current ward boundaries. See chart summarizing by decade: a total of 1386 agreements and a promised $1.52 billion (as of March 21, 2024). But no indication how many dollars actually received by the city, how/where these funds were spent, or balance remaining of unspent cash.

Open Data: Section 37 promised cash benefits for Ward 13 (1984-2022)
Open Data: Section 37 promised cash benefits, summarized by ward, by decade (1984-2022)
Section 37 summary for 2013-14, 2016-18 and 2019
Section 37 cash expenditures for Ward 13 (2019)
Section 37 cash balances as of Dec 31, 2019

sample Ward 13 benefits
Each Open Data entry shows Approval Date, Cash benefit, By?law #, Address, and Description of Benefits. The actual bylaw gives a complete description (mostly general restrictions on use of funds). For example, 2 large amounts for Wed 13 are:

  • $14.75m in Sept 2021 (2 Carlton: the block bounded by Carlton, Yonge and Wood). As per bylaw, cash amount to be increased by upwards indexing according to the Statistics Canada Non-Residential Construction Price Index, until date payment is made. Funds to be paid prior to the issuance of the first above-grade building permit for the development. Funds to be allocated equally, between:
    (a) Capital improvements for new or existing affordable housing, cultural or recreational facilities in the Ward;
    (b) Local area streetscape capital improvements; and
    (c) Local area park capital improvements.

  • $14.2m in Nov 2019 (CIBC Head Office complex: 56 Yonge Street, 21 Melinda St., 18 to 30 Wellington St. W., 187 to 199 Bay St. and 25 King St. W.) Amount to be indexed, payable when building permit issued.
    (a) $3.3m for public streetscape improvements adjacent to the site
    (b) $1.8m for public streetscape improvements within the Financial District
    (c, i)$8m for new affordable housing within Ward 13
    (c, ii) $4.4m for local streetscape improvements within Ward 13, in consultation with the Ward
    (d) $1m for on-site public art
    If the funds have not been used for the intended purposes within three (3) years of the By-law date, funds may be used for another purpose that will benefit Ward 13 (see bylaw)
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Section 37


In City’s 1980’s Official Plan, the intent for Trefann Court was detailed in its own secondary plan (back then, called a Part II plan). But forty years later, almost all mention of Trefann Court’s significance as a “neighbourhood” has disappeared from city records.

It takes a lot of digging through search results to find any reference to Trefann Court on the city’s website; it’s buried in these PDF documents:

Cabbagetown Southwest Heritage Conservation District Study Report, June 2019. Trefann history mentioned on page 35-36 (of Chapter 2: History and Evolution).
King Parliament Secondary Plan Review, 2019. See page 14 for Trefann history.
• The only other significant link is to the City of Toronto Archives’ collection (see urban planning topic): author Graham Fraser’s records relating to Trefann Court

Fortunately Trefann Court’s informative Wikipedia entry is a top Google search result. And Toronto City Hall hasn’t totally forgotten us; Trefann Court appears on the city’s wayfinding signage. “The Toronto 360 (“TO360”) Wayfinding project is a pedestrian wayfinding system to help make Toronto a more walkable, welcoming and understandable place for visitors and residents alike.” Toronto committed $11.8 million to invest in the TO360 Wayfinding Project, using a variety of sign types: “wide totems” “narrow totems,” “fingerposts,” and “wall signs” (CBC, Sept 2018). See explanation of map features: landmarks, local destinations, community assets, districts.

Queen / SumachFront / SumachKing / Sumach 

The “high level” Toronto Visitor Map identifies Corktown but not Trefann Court. Trefann Court residents might notice possible minor inaccuracies in local wayfinding signs: The fingerpost at the SE corner of Queen/Sumach is immediately south of Trefann’s boundaries, but doesn’t list Trefann. That fingerpost is within Corktown boundaries, but directs pedestrians to head south. Trefann is shown correctly on the fingerpost at King/Sumach, as well as map “totems” at Queen/Parliament and Cherry/Front.

Good to see that Trefann Court is identified by TO360 Wayfinding Project (although likely only older urban planning aficionados will know of the neighbourhood’s significance in Toronto’s recent history).

Posted in general | Comments Off on Wayfinding

auto dealer parking on school site

It’s appropriate to have schools within residential areas, so kids can attend school close to home. School lands are zoned institutional. There are good reasons for the city’s zoning rules, which do not allow commercial activity, such as a large-scale auto dealership activity on land zoned institutional. In 2016, TDSB demolished their school at 20 Regent St (on the north-west corner of Parliament/Shuter). This vacant property, zoned institutional, is now controlled by TCDSB. TCDSB is a sophisticated property owner and is doubtless aware of all Toronto zoning restrictions that affects land use.

Previously a small parking lot for school staff was situated on the south-west corner of the property, with access from Shuter. By 2018, this parking area had been expanded, covered in gravel, and used by an auto dealership for storing cars. In mid-Nov 2023, that gravel parking lot was greatly expanded; it now covers 2/3 of the property, and contains 100+ cars. Many are Audi, Mercedes, BMV; some vehicles are brand new: no licence plates, car windows still covered with protective white film plastic.


Use of land zoned institutional for commercial purposes (parking for large auto dealerships) is illegal, and is detrimental to the surrounding residential area; it’s immediately adjacent to new housing that has been constructed as part of the Regent Park, a residential area that the city is working hard to revitalize. Traffic entering/exiting this auto storage lot adds traffic to Shuter St, and conflicts with the separated bike lane.

This illegal use has persisted for 5 years. Let’s see if the city enforces its zoning laws.

Posted in school | Comments Off on auto dealer parking on school site

90 Sumach

Why was a 6 story warehouse built in the 1950’s, stuck in behind the historic houses on Sumach and Shuter? As a condo building, has 90 Sumach been a “considerate” neighbour?

90 Sumach, behind houses on Shuter (top) and Sumach (right)

1992: looking west to 90 Sumach, from Shuter/River

1949: bounded by Shuter (top), Sumach, Queen (bottom), Sackville

How did it happen?

plan 16, Trefann Court Urban Renewal Scheme, Jan 1972

The houses on Shuter St were built in the 1890s. (Originally North Park St, the road was renamed Sydenham St, and then Shuter St.) Where 90 Sumach is now was originally stables for horse-drawn delivery wagons used by Dominion Brewery. (Compare 1949 and 1967 aerial photos.) In 1957, the Rubin Corporation constructed the large 6 storey warehouse at 90 Sumach for the CBC (who used it for 30 years as storage, prop construction and rehearsal space). At a height of 29m, it towers over the surrounding houses. Buildings throughout the city face onto a public street, but 90 Sumach is in the middle of the block bounded by Shuter, Sumach, Queen and Sackville St. This warehouse was built to within 1.3m of its east and north property lines since the builder expected the city to expropriate 1 the surrounding houses. This conflict motivated Trefann Court residents to fight back, successfully, against the city’s 1966 urban renewal plans. The city’s revised plan in 1972 made vague promises that 90 Sumach would be eventually demolished, and replaced with residential housing (see above diagram). That didn’t happen; a 1996 OMB hearing approved All‑Borough Properties’ plan to convert 90 Sumach to a 110 unit residential condo. Units face either north or south, and have a single window (except corner units). A number of restrictions 2 were added to the 1996 site-specific bylaw to minimize conflicts between 90 Sumach and the houses on Shuter and Sumach.

How neighbourly?

This 110 unit condo has significant pooled financial resources. Its owners are anonymous, hidden behind a condo board and aloof property management company. Shuter St residents rarely see 90 Sumach owners: their pedestrian entrance is off Sumach and parking garage entrance is off Queen.

It’s frustrating that 90 Sumach doesn’t consult with surrounding neighbours to get advance feedback on possible changes that may affect Shuter homeowners; 90 Sumach just takes action unilaterally, and then offers vague platitudes 3.

Shared laneway

On the north side of 90 Sumach is a “T” shaped laneway:
• a north-south laneway located between 445 and 459 Shuter (8m wide), and
• a 80m long east-west laneway: parallel to Shuter Street, located behind 439-461 Shuter (3m wide)
Ownership of these laneways is mixed. ln 1957 the builder of 90 Sumach demolished the house at 447 Shuter to create a wider laneway for access to 90 Sumach’s loading dock. Thus 90 Sumach “owns” the 4.93m wide portion (known as “part 3”) of this north-south laneway adjacent to 445 Shuter; Shuter residents have right-of-way over this land. The 2.98m wide eastern side (“part 4”) adjacent to 449 Shuter has been a laneway since the 1890s; it’s an orphan, still registered to George Worrell, who built 449-459 Shuter in 1891. Use of the north-south laneway is shared by Shuter residents and 90 Sumach, and should never be blocked by trucks waiting to access 90 Sumach’s loading dock. Ownership of the 80m? long east-west laneway is also registered to George Worrell; 90 Sumach would have no justification for right-of-way over that portion. The darkly shaded area on the diagram (below right) shows the “T” shaped lands still owned by George Worrell.

Conflicts with 90 Sumach pre‑date Ontario’s conversion to Land Titles 4, so some references here are to Land Registry records.

In 1999, when 90 Sumach was converted to condos, Shuter residents spent $1,320 to have a lawyer register their historic right-of-way over part 3 of the laneway. Right-of-way over the 1.3m strip of land (part 6) on the north side of 90 Sumach was also registered, to give Shuter residents flexibility when parking in rear yards and in the east-west laneway.

Noise and privacy

Houseowners pay a premium to have a backyard for private outdoor amenity space (that extra land increases the cost). On the rare occasion when a neighbour is noisy, the adjacent houseowner likely knows them by name, and can phone or visit in person, and discuss. Not so easy to identify the exact source of late-night noise, when it’s coming from 90 Sumach!

proximity of unit 312 terrace to 441-445 Shuter St back yards

In comparison, a unit-owner in a multi-unit condo building hasn’t paid for a private backyard and so has no expectation of private outdoor space, unless a balcony is permitted. On the north side of 90 Sumach is an 8m wide roof above their parking garage. The bylaw prohibits balconies anywhere on the north side of the building. The 3rd floor condo unit (unit 312) overlooks the section of garage roof which is west of the protruding stairwell. That unit owner got permission from the condo board in 2018 to construct a private outdoor terrace, even though explicitly prohibited by the bylaw. No advance notice was given to adjacent Shuter residents, who, upon observing the terrace construction in Aug 2021, asked the city why the bylaw was ignored. The Committee of Adjustment (CofA) refused unit 312’s request for a retroactive minor variance to allow this terrace. The owner of unit 312 objected, but Shuter residents didn’t have the funds to hire a professional planner to explain reasons why restrictions banning use of the garage roof should remain. Unit 312 hired a lawyer and urban planner to appeal the CofA decision and argue that bylaw restrictions should be ignored; the Toronto Local Appeal Body (TLAB) agreed and approved this terrace in Oct 2022. (more details). For Shuter residents, this was a repeat of the 1996 OMB hearing: the party with greater financial resources to hire lawyers and expert witnesses often wins, regardless of argument merits. (See above photo: unit 312’s terrace looms over 439-445 Shuter backyards)

Laneway parking

Since the 1980s, Shuter residents have always parked on “part 3” of the laneway while “part 4” provides access to 90 Sumach’s loading dock and to the laneway behind Shuter St houses. In 2016, 90 Sumach proclaimed (via notice affixed to car windshields) that “part 3” would now be for their exclusive use for parking (in spite of bylaw restrictions on any increase in their outdoor parking 2). Several Shuter residents protested to 90 Sumach, and expended considerable time and $370 in lawyer fees: to refute 90 Sumach’s claim for “full and exclusive use of the laneway” and to ensure that 90 Sumach recognized shared laneway ownership 5 as described above. After further communication from 90 Sumach, and an in-person meeting, they finally backed down.

The condo owns less than 1/3 of the area of the laneway, yet they had the entire “T” shaped laneway paved in 1999, with no prior warning. Again in 2023, the condo abruptly announced they would repave all of these laneways again; Shuter residents who park in their backyards or behind their homes were told find their own alternative parking for 4 days.

Sumach neighbours

90 Sumach hasn’t been considerate of neighbours on the east side. The building is only 1.3m from the properties on Sumach St. When 90 Sumach undertook repair of several floors of their east wall in 2009, they did not provide protection for the adjacent properties. Sizable chunks of concrete fell onto the neighbouring Sumach St properties, endangering the lives of any neighbours who may have been using their backyards.


  1. Expropriation:
    “The warehouse, while under construction, was advertised with a large billboard which showed the building surrounded by landscaped green space stretching north to Shuter St where there was in fact a row of houses.” (Gordon Fraser: Fighting Back, 1972; page 65)
    “Buildings recommended for acquisition and clearance. The inclusion of houses from 439 to 463 Shuter St [for expropriation] provides the land necessary to satisfy the parking requirements of the CBC.” (City of Toronto Planning Board: Trefann Court Urban Renewal Scheme, Oct 1966; page 11)
  2. Section 1 of the 90 Sumach site-specific bylaw contains restrictions to address concerns of privacy and overlook of, and possible conflict with, neighbouring properties:
    (6) no balconies on north or east building face, or the north side of the west face
    (8) no more than 22 outdoor parking spaces [see plan: 13 visitor parking on east side, 9 employee parking on west side]
    (12) at least 1,078 m2 of landscaped open space
    (14) no doors to the garage roof
    (23) 5 metre setback of rooftop amenity space, on north and east sides of the building
    (24) garage roof used for maintenance only (i.e. no patios or outdoor amenity space)
    (25) use of laneway to loading dock for moving in/moving out only
    (26-28) frosted glass in selected locations
  3. Communications from 90 Sumach:
    “We want to first note that the owners of MTCC 1235 [90 Sumach] wish to continue to have a good relationship with its surrounding neighbours” (May 31, 2016)
    “The Board has determined that there is no real benefit … in alienating our valued neighbours.” (July 4, 2016)
  4. “For a long time, Ontario had two systems of property registration: the Registry System and The Land Titles System. The Ontario Registry Act created the registry system and came into effect in 1795. It was the sole land registry system until the Land Titles Act came into effect in 1885. In the 1990s, the Ontario government began to phase out the registry system and convert all registrations to land titles. In the 1990s, the government created the Province of Ontario Land Registration Information System (POLARIS) to facilitate the automation of the land registration system.” (source: RBF website)
  5. In 2016, a lawyer hired by Shuter homeowners researched ownership of the various parts of the laneway, and also offered to register right-of-way (ROW) on Shuter homeowners’ property titles. A previous lawyer registered this ROW on 90 Sumach’s property title only (since in 1999 it was unclear how to update the old Land Registry system to register ROW on title for the Shuter homeowners.)
Posted in history | Comments Off on 90 Sumach

developments – Queen River (Oct 2023)

This is the area east of River St, between Queen and Dundas. The secondary plan for this area was revised in 2020 to permit more tall buildings.

  • 111 River (at Dundas, “River Condos”, developer Lifetime Developments, 34 storey)
    Dec 2019 – preliminary planning report
    Urbantoronto project description
    “River Condos” not listed on developer’s website
    existing buildings not yet demolished
  • 5 Defries St (“River & Fifth”, developer Broccolini, 37 storey)
    Nearing completion (shown in photos above, and right); located just south of the Mercedes dealership: 1 block S of Dundas, 1 block E of River (site is bounded by Mark St, Bayview, Labatt and Defries). This development is supposed to include pedestrian/cycle path leading down the slope of the Don Valley at the rear of the property to Bayview Avenue that will connect to a new sidewalk to be constructed along Bayview Avenue.
    Urbantoronto project description and construction photos
    June 2018 planning report
    developer’s website
  • 93 River (at Labatt, “The Riv”, developer Broccolini, 34 storey)
    (The full address is “83-97 River Street and 2-4 Labatt Avenue”, ie. the north-east corner.)
    Jan 2020 – Urbantoronto
    Sept 2021 – city legal report (recommending settlement)
    Dec 2021 LPAT approval
    pre-sales underway (previously marketed as Leftbank)
    developer’s website
  • 77 River (at Shuter, Salvation Army site, developer TAS, 38 storey)
    Dec 2016 – City Council approval (The full address is “77 River Street and 7 Labatt Avenue”, ie. the south-east corner.)
    developer’s plans
    Urbantoronto project description
Posted in development | Comments Off on developments – Queen River (Oct 2023)

developments – Oct 2023

(The previous summary was Jan 2022 and includes links to city planning reports etc).
Details on development proposals which have been submitted to the city can be found on the Development Applications map (filter by ward, then zoom in on the map)

  • 187 Parliament (Thrifty car rental site, 11 storey)
    plans include 6,000 square feet indoor and outdoor event space on the 11th floor
    Now under construction

    April 2023187 Parliament, Aug 2022

  • 471-479 Queen East (between Bright and Sumach, developer Brad Lamb, 15 storey)
    This development was approved with minor changes by OLT in April 2023 (good luck using a street address to lookup a decision on the OLT website!) Soil testing on site was underway in Sept 2023.
    See pages 3-4 of the OLT decision. Required changes include:
    • above level 14, the 2.5 metre setback from the south elevation was moved to the north elevation to decrease the massing facing Queen St
    • vehicular access will no longer be provided from Queen St. Inbound and outbound vehicular access will be provided from Sumach Street.
  • 252 Parliament (Salvation Army store site, developer Core, 9 storey)
    Urbantoronto project description
    This project is shown on the architect’s website, no details on the developer’s website.
  • 28 River (Beer store site, just north of Queen, 15 storey)
    The current owner is apparently looking to sell the site to someone else to develop (see details)

  • 351-353 Queen East (SE corner of Parliament/Queen, developer ONE Properties, 27 storeys)
    Shoppers drug store closed Sept 7, 2023; when existing buildings will be cleared from the site is unknown. The developer applied to Committee of Adjustment on Oct 4 to remove the planned supermarket space and add 1 floor (now 28 storey)
    Urbantoronto project summary
Posted in development | Comments Off on developments – Oct 2023

Shuter St crosswalks upgraded to traffic lights

An earlier post identified our concerns with Toronto Traffic Management’s June 2022 report, which recommended to “not authorize the installation of traffic control signals”. Fortunately, our interim city councillor overruled Toronto Traffic, and traffic lights at Sumach and Sackville were approved by Community Council (TEYCC) in June 2022. These traffic lights were installed this summer, and activated on Aug 10 (Sumach) and Sept 7 (Sackville), resulting in improved safety for pedestrians, and possibly reducing traffic speed. Shuter speed limit is 30 km/h, and Watch Your Speed (WYS) signs are still in place.

Posted in Shuter St | Comments Off on Shuter St crosswalks upgraded to traffic lights

Ontario Line – Corktown walking tour

An “invitation-only” meeting on Aug 11 was revealed in a recent Metrolinx (MX) newsletter (no mention on Corktown, West Don Lands or our city councillor’s websites)

“Metrolinx hosted its first walking tour with the West Don Lands Committee (WDLC). The two hour tour kicked-off at the Corktown Common and concluded at the future Corktown Station, to be located at King and Berkley. Participants had an opportunity to ask questions about upcoming early works in the Don Yard, and traffic and pedestrian safety near Mill St. Next steps will include establishing a Construction Liaison Committee (CLC) for the Corktown Station, where members will have an opportunity to provide input.”

Some highlights from MX’s handout:

  • tunnelling starts second half of 2024
  • southbound curb lane of Parliament (south of King) to be closed for 7 years
  • tunnel excavation typically performed on a 20 to 24-hour basis, 5 days a week
  • when not tunnelling (typically 1-4 hours per 24-hour period), there will be maintenance activities, requiring some equipment at the surface to be operating (“ie. more noise”)

Below illustration shows immediately south of Corktown Common, where Ontario Line will emerge from the tunnel, to cross the Don River at grade.

Update (Jan 2023)
Metrolinx has liaison committees for the Ontario Line Corktown and Sherbourne stations.
Posted in Ontario Line | Comments Off on Ontario Line – Corktown walking tour

development – 28 River

The original proposal for a 15-storey building 28 River Street (the Beer Store site) was opposed by city planning in March 2017, since “it does not comply with Official Plan policies with regard to an appropriate transition in scale between a Mixed-Use Area and a Neighbourhood. The proposed development would cause excessive negative impact on the existing adjacent townhouses located on Wascana Avenue and River Street and represents overdevelopment of the site.

On May 2, city planning hosted a a community meeting to consider a revised proposal (18-storey), which “includes the property at 550 Queen Street East in order to allow the building height and massing to be moved away from the townhouses on Wascana Avenue toward the Queen Street frontage”. Approval was quickly recommended by the city lawyer on June 8. Analysis of the Revised Proposal by Planning Staff and Heritage Planning Staff is still confidential and not available to the public! This proposal has already been approved by Toronto City Council on June 15, conditional on receiving $2.5mm payment of Section 37 money. Wascana residents can read this development description, look at the plans, and decide whether they agree the impact on their neighbourhood will be acceptable.

Update (Oct 2023)
A recent commercial real estate marketing video seems to suggest that the current owner is looking to sell the site to someone else to develop; due date for offers was July 11, 2023. The plan shown below was approved by the city; if/when development proceeds, these plans may change. As of Oct 2023, Toronto Planning staff’s June 2022 report is still confidential; only the instructions portion of that report is now public.

Posted in development | Comments Off on development – 28 River