Here is a letter sent by two of our residents to The University of Toronto president, Meric Gertler:
Dr. Meric Gertler,
President,
University of Toronto December 9, 2016
Dear Dr. Gertler,
Although we have not met you (we do see you at the JCC!), we know of your fine reputation as an urban geographer who is aware of the critical importance of healthy cities and communities. As friends and close neighbours of the University of Toronto, we write to share with you our thoughts about the proposed student residence at Spadina and Sussex. Our concerns are very widely shared in our neighbourhood, and we hope you will be actively sympathetic to them.
We view the proposed residence with well-considered alarm primarily because it is massively out of scale with the neighbourhood and, as a result, will cause serious problems in a number of ways. Since it would also be much larger than any University residences to the east of Spadina, the obvious conclusion our community has drawn is that the University has decided to place this monstrosity beyond its traditional boundary, probably for social and aesthetic reasons. (It is well-known that the University’s own official plan for the east side of Spadina proposes a low and mid rise residential development; why would you place a high rise on our side of Spadina?).
The proposal dramatically violates the city’s bylaws in ways that are unacceptable to us and our neighbours. The developers’ plans shockingly exceed maximum allowable height (83 metres proposed;12 metres allowed) and allowable density. The planned building would cover virtually 100% of the site (The proposed density coverage of 9.6 times the area deviates massively not only from the zoning bylaw of 1.0 times the site area, but also from other recent developments in the general area.)
Flying in the face of the city’s Official Plan, which calls for developments to be compatible with neighbourhoods and to protect them from negative impacts, this proposed building would be an alien presence, quite unintegrated with its immediate (and greater Annex) neighbourhood. (And arguments about the benefits of graduated townhouses and commercial floors have not been persuasive to residents.)
Regardless of who would be living in the building, the problems of scale would exist, but they would be exacerbated by the plans for over 500 students, mostly first year. We have attended several community meetings at which the neighbourhood has made clear how uncreative such a plan is. Ideas suggested by neighbours have included a mix of faculty and graduate student apartments, married student quarters, and a varied range of student ages. A truly mixed community, living in a much smaller building, is something the community has said we could live with.
Neighbours have also pointed out problems with shading in nearby buildings, a huge burden on a TTC route which is already more than crowded, and dangers to pedestrians crossing such a wide thoroughfare. And it should go without saying that our area has an unacceptably low amount of green space as well as continual and severe problems with noise.
On a number of occasions, the Daniels representatives have listened to our suggestions of what the community could live with. They have listened—but clearly they have not heard. Repeatedly they return with the same basic size and plan.
We implore you to respect your neighbours and intervene in the process. We respect your commitment to lead the University, but we want to remind you of your equally important responsibility to the community into which the University appears to be forcing its way. From the proposed site, one can see the corner of Bloor and Spadina, with its plaque that honours the inspiring civic values and vision of Jane Jacobs.
With our regards and hopes for the continued health of the community,
Fred T
Annette T
Major Street