Murphy’s Law site proposal increases to 11-storeys in height, raising concerns over Queen Street East development guidelines
By MATTHEW STEPHENS
A new proposal for a residential building at the southwest corner of Queen Street East and Kingston Road is now calling for an 11-storey structure at the site.
An updated Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment application to develop an 11-storey residential building at the site was recently received by the City of Toronto on behalf of developer SUD Group.
Previously, a six-storey residential building had been approved at the location. A former CIBC bank building which operated for years as Murphy’s Law pub will be preserved as part of the proposal.
The new proposal is raising concerns among residents and the local councillor for a number of reasons, one of which is that it has ignored the existing Queen Street East Urban Design Guidelines (UDG), which limits buildings in the Beach to six-storeys between Coxwell Avenue and Nursewood Road. The Queen Street East UDG also contains a number of conditions to ensure development in the area meets with the neighbourhood’s established character of buildings and streetscape.
Scott Bullock of the Beaches Residents Association said the lengthy and in-depth consultations that took place to establish the Queen Street East UDG in 2012, have been disregarded by this proposal for an 11-storey building.
“They don’t care about any of the consultations that took place. They don’t care what the official plan said. They don’t care about providing affordable housing for people. And the best part is that once they get it, and they will, then a new precedent is set for that corner,” said Bullock in an interview with Beach Metro Community News.
The six-storey building proposal was approved by the city a number of years ago. After the demolition of some existing buildings on the site, including the former Days Inn hotel in 2022, no further work had taken place.
According to a statement from SUD Group, their decision to update the proposal was a result of “changing market conditions” which have made the approved development “no longer viable.”
For Bullock, questions arise regarding the development process following of the demo of the hotel, which had briefly served as YWCA women’s shelter during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“They immediately nuked the hotel that was on the property … they didn’t waste any time getting rid of that. And then what did they do? They sat on it,” said Bullock.
“People should already be living there. But hey, why not just wait? Until the market conditions have changed and the political conditions have changed. The community has had to just sit around watching as nothing happened on that site.”
Beaches-East York Councillor Brad Bradford shares residents’ concerns regarding the developer’s decision to seek an update to the zoning application for the Murphy’s Law site.
“Several years ago, Beachers participated in a robust and engaged consultation process around the redevelopment of Murphy’s Law and surrounding properties into a six-storey, mixed-use building. City Council approved that proposal in 2022,” said Bradford in a statement to Beach Metro Community News.
“Unfortunately, the developer chose not to move forward with that approved proposal, and is instead returning and looking to nearly double the size and more than double the unit count. I have heard from many residents who are concerned that the developer is moving the goalposts here. I share these concerns.”
When asked by Beach Metro Community News whether the updated development proposal would follow the Queen Street East UDG, the SUD Group said their planning is reflective of the City of Toronto’s 2024 Mid-Rise Guidelines and 2012 Urban Design Guidelines.
“The new application reflects the city’s current planning direction, particularly the City of Toronto’s 2024 Mid-Rise Guidelines. It also considers the 2012 Urban Design Guidelines to ensure a contextual response to the neighbourhood, including a four-storey street wall along Queen Street East,” said SUD Group in a statement.
SUD Group also mentioned that the proposed development would come with a slew of other “meaningful improvements” to the surrounding area, such as converting Penny Lane into a green pedestrian pathway, introducing a safer traffic connection to Kingston Road, and creating a public walking path that connects from Penny Lane to Orchard Park.
“Alongside the preservation of the heritage building on site, these enhancements will create a safe and welcoming streetscape while delivering much-needed housing for Toronto,” said SUD Group.
SUD Group said it has addressed the need for affordable housing in Toronto with this proposal, stating they “believe delivering more units will contribute to the overall housing stock in the city … The intent with this proposal is to develop a purpose-built rental building with an affordable housing component.”
It is not known at this time how many units, if any, within the mixed-use building will be affordable. Bullock said he hopes that Councillor Bradford and city planners will oppose this new proposal.
Bradford said he will work with residents to address their concerns and provide updates regarding community consultation meetings on the proposal.
“I will make sure that residents have ample notice for the required community consultation meeting, and I encourage community members to share their thoughts on the new proposal at that meeting or directly with me,” said Bradford.
How is it that they talk about the urgent need of public housing when so many lots in the city sit empty? And if there are new buildings constructed, it is predominantly expensive condos? Is the latter just meant to put more and more people in debt? I moved here from Germany in 2022. Over there, private condos are the exception to the rule, while most people are renters. Yes, it is true that the rent there has also gone up in various larger cities but in general is still not as exorbitant as here. Permits should be given to builders based on (affordable) rental units available, not based on building another condo building with tiny units no one can really afford without taking out an unfavourable mortgage. But I guess this remains wishful thinking….
This is why developers should never be allowed to knock down a single building or close a single business until they have proven funding for their entire project.
It’s also a symptom of our lousy development planning in this city, which foolishly and shortsightedly focused on building condos for investor landlords that are too expensive to rent, instead of the purpose-built rental housing we actually needed. This has caused the bottom to drop out of the condo market, leading approved condo developments to pivot to rentals two or three times the size in order for developers to make the kind of return their shareholders demand.
We need a public developer building public housing, only when we cut out the cost of corporate profits can we expect to have affordable rent.
Brad to stop making slick videos for a potential second run for mayor, and needs to do his day job – working for ward 19.
For over a dozen years, I have been trying to get a Heritage Conservation District for Queen in the Beaches, and there is a formal nomination I submitted in 2013 that has gone nowhere, despite my repeated requests. Councillor McMahon’s work on Queen ignored requests for an update of the heritage work done in the 1990s, nor did she do anything to advance he HCD proposal – then a second one came in from other people.
The recommendations of the 2012 “Visioning Study” were seen as allowing larger or more intrusive development than people at the meetings wanted – but Planning Staff insisted that the rules would be defended… but then, we had studies in the 1990s, and the rules were stripped out of the 2002 Official Plan and what was left was ignored by the planners when the Lick’s condo came up. Councillors have to defend the rules and ensure the planners keep their promises.
Bradford must take some action to get the Queen in the Beaches Heritage Conservation District advanced and staff assigned to it. NOW! Do something! Action, not talk.
We now risk having the Official Plan amendment for Queen East of Coxwell to Nursewood gutted, and heritage buildings demolished entirely, because 2 Councillors over 12 years didn’t make it a priority to get an HCD despite massive support for the idea. The art deco Foodland store will be demolished when it should have been identified and protected… that tin ceiling inside is a gem worthy of protection, as are the bas reliefs that were covered over for decades.
The Official Plan Amendment in 2013 set what is essentially a 6 storey limit on Queen – but planners always allow minor loopholes. The Foodland condo violates the rules in minor ways, but will they now come back looking for 11 storeys too?
The 2024 Mid-Rise study grants as of right zoning for height based on the ROW of the Avenue. Queen is 20 M which grants 6-stories. Why does the developer think 11-stories is representative of this?
This project was approved many many years ago. They instantly knocked down a woman’s shelter that was on the site. Why?
Then after consulting with the community and getting buy-in from all concerned what did they do? Nothing but let the site rot for years.
If they want to provide rental housing great! Lose the high end condos and turn the 6 story sight into “deeply affordable housing.” That would be great.
Otherwise, we know that really all they want to do is double the size of the building and double their profits!
One thing I’ve learned from working with developers, city councillors and planners is that NONE have the best interest of the community in mind. Councillor Bradford, will say he cares but in the end will do NOTHING. All they want is more property taxes to fund there pet projects. BEWARE.