22 January 2016
Dr. Meric Gertler
President
University of Toronto
27 King’s College Circle
Toronto, ON M5S 1A1
Dear Dr. Gertler:
Since the very first meeting between community members and the University of Toronto to discuss the building proposed for the corner of Sussex and Spadina Avenues, there has been a general consensus that a dormitory for 500+ students - mostly first-year - is not considered acceptable by local residents. Many objections were raised; mostly they centred on the fact that a tall building would not be welcome in the location selected by the University and its corporate partner, Daniels, and that - though students are a part of our life here - they are integrated into an already existent population in this neighbourhood and are not concentrated in one building. We like the mix of our neighbourhood and believe that the imposition of a building with a homogenous population - especially a large, homogenous population - would not be a desirable fit in this heterogenous, integrated neighbourhood.
From that first meeting and onward, community members strongly suggested that the building, if it were to be erected, should be a low-rise, mixed-use building - low rise meaning not seriously robbing its northern neighbour of its view, and mixed-use meaning a combination of university students and others who rent apartments, much like at 666 Spadina Avenue - and that it be “porous”, that is, accessible to community members, and include some amenities that would bring them into the building - a public space, perhaps, which fostered one of the arts, e.g., theatre, visual arts, etc.
Over the various iterations proposed by the University/Daniels consortium, the community’s interests and concerns have been largely ignored or addressed with platitudes such as “We want to give you the Daniels Experience” and mediocre design - no other word for it: it is the wrong building in the wrong place, no “architecture” can get around this. Yes, the town houses that dominated the ground levels of prior plans are now concentrated in a small area immediately to the west of the dormitory tower, pandering to the idea of “mixed use” rather than addressing it in a meaningful, imaginative way, and the projected main entrance has been relocated. A coffee shop (definitely not needed in the neighbourhood - there are at least four nearby) has been proposed and a high-end proprietor suggested for it (but not contracted, as far as I have been able to find out) has all but disappeared, and the Centre for Community Partnerships has re-appeared in this iteration of the discussion (when I asked the Centre about this about a year ago, they were unaware), a couple of floors of offices with questionable community rental possibilities remain ... and the building has actually increased in height, blocking the view from the high rise immediately north of it. The major concerns residents have expressed - repeatedly and consistently - have not been addressed and have in no way been rectified. It is no surprise, therefore, that the building is still opposed by many.
The argument was made that a truly mixed-use building as favoured by community members could not be built by the University/Daniels consortium. Well, perhaps it has never been done before, but a University which prides itself on innovation, could likely find a way to be innovative, rather than imposing something unacceptable on this community. What has been offered by the consortium, unrelentingly, is a high-rise dorm. The argument was also made - repeatedly - that a low-rise building would not be economically feasible, in that it could not be sufficiently populated to support a meal plan. This deserves some serious thought, if the need for a meal plan is seen as a valid reason for inflicting this building on us. Perhaps this site is the wrong location for what the university needs.
It seems clear that the U of T and Daniels simply wish to have their way with this neighbourhood and its residents. Money takes precedence over neighbourhood vision and concerns. Greed is a selfish monster, and the University and Daniels are tainted with it.
The University, by giving precedence to rectifying its fiscal and residency problems and being quite willing to do great damage to a well-established and flourishing neighbourhood, is setting a dreadful example for its students. This is how corporations operate - and of course, the University of Toronto is first and foremost a corporation. Its message to its students: Do unto others as we do unto others, regardless of their legitimate concerns. Might is right.
I do not see Spadina Avenue as a barrier to the university. I appreciate the good influences of the university west of Spadina - the proximity to the library and the athletic complex, the lovely green spaces on campus in an area with an insufficiency of green spaces, the energy of the students on Bloor Street and in the building where I live. The neighbourhood has a great “vibe”, in part because of the university. What I do object to is the intrusion of the campus itself into this neighbourhood, the imposition of it, in the form of a building that does not fit, either in its purpose, size or shape.
I write as a person who has lauded the University for its attempts to contribute good modern architecture to the city - even when I have not agreed with the results - and as a person who is not unrelentingly opposed to high-rise buildings, when they are in appropriate places, nor to increased density in a city starving for places to live and for decent public transportation. I also write as a longtime resident of this neighbourhood, who lives close by the site chosen for this large dormitory; as a person who has considerable experience within student services at two universities; and as a person who has devoted many hours as a volunteer with the University of Toronto, since the early ‘90s - both through the Faculty of Medicine and the Centre for Community Partnerships. I plan to continue to volunteer, no matter what the University chooses to impose on us, so this is not a threat. But I cannot tell you what a sad experience it is to see the U of T and Daniels operating in such a callous manner. I had hoped for more, at least from the University.
Guess I was wrong.
Sincerely,
Walter C.
666 Spadina Avenue
Walter C.
666 Spadina Avenue