top of page

NEIGHBOURHOOD CONCERNS ABOUT
THE PALACE ARMS REDEVELOPMENT

938-950 King St W, at the NE corner of King & Strachan and 97-99 Strachan Avenue

Overview: Text

UPDATE: February 24.  Despite months of asking for answers, working with local land owners, experts and community. Despite emotional pleadings from community asking for a deferral. Which would have meant more time to review and consult.  Community Council unanimously approved the re-zoning for Palace Arms. Mr. Cressy claimed victory.  Moments after the vote our councillor had his 5 page  newsletter ready. A tactical error if he wanted us to think this was actually a vote.  As we've all known for months from his correspondence and behavior with us this was a done deal. Never listening to our concerns or trying to work with us. He didn't even show up to the applicant meeting and left us to get intimidated.  This wasn't really a vote.  This is what really happened. This is just one deputation. People cried. People begged council to listen. They didn't, they waited to talk and Joe waited to send out his claim of victory for affordable housing. 

This is not a victory for anyone but predatory developers and Councillor's newsletter.   We (and the residents of the Palace Arms, past and present) need you now more than ever.  This started as a few neighbours meeting after a community meeting and turned into a group of over 250 people who care about our community. 

You can read our official Opposition letter here. The City didn't care about all of these issues but you should. 

​

You can read our official rebuttal and fact check of Mr. Cressy's newsletter here. 

​​

Palace_Arms_overhead.jpg

OVERVIEW

The Palace Arms at 950 King Street West (NE corner of King & Strachan Avenue) has been a Toronto landmark for 130 years. Now a heritage building, it was built as a hotel and since the 1970s served as a 90-unit rooming house; − In 2017, Intentional Capital purchased the property to develop it into condos; and residents were pushed out. The building sits mostly empty during a housing crisis. The developers submitted their plans to the City in March 2019 and revised plans in October 2020; − and again In Dec 2020. In December the City informed our working group the property will be developed into rental units although the application still mentions condos.  The current application has major cause for concern but the City is insisting on giving this applicant carte blanche and pushing it through. All we asked for was a deferral. 

OUR CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROPOSAL

Although we do support the development of this site, we feel City representatives are making a bad deal, giving up too much to the benefit of the developers at the expense of the neighbourhood. 

Planning's report has just been released. It's a disappointment. Our concerns since 2019 have been ignored. and it 

includes the city handing developers approximately 6-7 million dollars in exchange for 31 affordable units

You can read our official opposition letter here

For more supporting documents click here which includes our collective comments on official plans

Overview: Who We Are

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

We seek full replacement / update of all 90 affordable housing units. Currently the City seem to have settled for 22 (or 31)  up from 15 proposed by the applicant.  The history of this building as affordable housing warrants full replacement of all units being lost.  Yet, 15-16 storeys (in a low-rise area) and only 31 units of affordable housing because the city is investing approximately 6 million dollars to a developer in the midst of a housing crisis. This could take years, if the city wants to invest in affordable housing in this manner, we feel this money could be used to create far more units than what the applicant seems willing to give on this property. Mr. Cressy has left 60 units or more behind. These are real people who will no longer have access to deeply affordable housing. The plan didn't include protection for residents of the Palace Arms towns. This plan includes the affordable units facing a laneway only 6m from another building.  This plan includes larger units which many tenants don't have the resources to afford or maintain. 

SHADOW / ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

This highrise will have major shadow impacts to our low-rise neighbourhood. We are in the pollinator path, there is a pollinator garden in Stanley Park and this plan will cast the neighbourhood into shadow in the morning, in the afternoon and early evening. This impacts the natural environment, and quality of life. See Shadow Study -

The public laneway the Palace Arms is proposing to take over  (at the east) will also see major impacts to light according to the current plan. The City doesn't seem to care about quality of life anymore. 

DENSITY

The site has a currently zoned density of CR 2.5x (c2.0; r2.5).  The current proposal is for a density of 9.17-9.38x, an increase of 3.67-3.75x the current allowable density. (Of note, the DNA3 development at King Street West and Shaw and referred to by planning as a precedent for height had a density of 6.4x the site area.) Why is planning backing over 9x density in an area which is already too dense and not on a subway line? Why is the site being referred to by planning as precedent not being adhered to at 6.4?  Over 9 times density on this site is much too dense for the site by all planning standards. 

HEIGHT

The site has a currently zoned height maximum of 18.0m.  The current proposal is for a height of 49.95m, or 2.78x the current allowable height. Why is this building with no precedent in the immediate area being granted such allowances? (Please note that the height stated on page 2 of the drawings supplied indicates the height to be 46.5m, but all subsequent drawings indicate the height to be 49.95m.) This will set a terrible precedent for typically protected Neighbourhoods.

TRAFFIC

The area is already gridlocked with traffic (even in the days of COVID), this plan doesn't have adequate space for parking and impacts to traffic. The plans currently take over a public laneway and we feel the space is too tight to allow for proper access. The traffic implications at the density being proposed are not being properly considered.

​

SETS A BAD PRECEDENT FOR THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

bottom of page