Ophelia (242-262 Queen St S) | 11 fl | U/C

[Belmonster]

Wow. I did not see that coming. Vive's proposal seemed like such a good fit for the space. So much for intensifying Queen St!

[Pheidippides]

The 242-262 Queen St S development still seems to have some life.

They have another received notice of another proposal and the heritage committee is allowing them to add it to the final agenda of the term even though staff haven't had a chance to review it:
   

[tomh009]

By "portions", I 'm guessing they mean the front facades?

They really cannot build an effective mid-rise building while keeping the two century homes. See the map here for 242/254/262:

   

What they might be able to do is keep roughly the front half of the homes to free up the back of the property for development. See the satellite photo here:

   

This might work from a space point of view, and they might be able to use the driveway of 262 Queen for the garage entrance (or for service vehicles). But I have a hard time visualizing how they will make this both work and look good.

[Rainrider22]

Would should happen is they go back to the new council and get their motion passed to tear down and move forward with the original plan.

[tomh009]

Would should happen is they go back to the new council and get their motion passed to tear down and move forward with the original plan.

Unfortunately, given that the old council voted 8-3 against their application, I don't think they would find enough votes in the new council to get the original plan approved.

[panamaniac]

The best solution, imho, would be to acknowledge that the block of Queen St between Courtland and Joseph should not be part of the heritage district.

[Spokes]

But could some of them change their mind with an election not looming. We've seen it happen before.

[clasher]

Just wait until someone burns them down.

[Rainrider22]

Would should happen is they go back to the new council and get their motion passed to tear down and move forward with the original plan.

Unfortunately, given that the old council voted 8-3 against their application, I don't think they would find enough votes in the new council to get the original plan approved.

They will vote in favour this time now that they have re-secured their position....

[Viewfromthe42]

What should be done is to hold council to account. We'll have the old proposal, and now a new proposal. If we see that the affordable portion is completely removed, average rents have gone up 50%, and the assessable tax base bump has been cut in half, we'll be able to ask is this really a perpetual eternal cost worth bearing?

[danbrotherston]

I believe they need more than a strict majority to override the previous decision. There may even be restrictions on raising the issue a second time.

[tomh009]

I believe they need more than a strict majority to override the previous decision.  There may even be restrictions on raising the issue a second time.

I believe it's a 2/3 majority to override a prior decision, so it would require an 8-3 vote (when it was exactly that in the opposite direction last time).

The new proposal looks pretty good, even if the two houses in front of the development do look pretty silly. But the rents are bound to be higher.

[Spokes]

Wait, are there images floating around already?

[tomh009]

Wait, are there images floating around already?

No, not yet. I saw a rendering but there are none online as far as I know. Hopefully after tomorrow's meeting.

[panamaniac]

Wait, are there images floating around already?

No, not yet. I saw a rendering but there are none online as far as I know. Hopefully after tomorrow's meeting.

Today's Record has a report on the revised proposal, but no render.