04-06-2016, 08:30 AM
(04-06-2016, 12:08 AM)mpd618 Wrote: [quote='MidTowner' pid='19079' dateline='1459877736']
I think this line of reasoning is kind of crazy. There are no current commercial amenities there - commercial zoning does not mean that such uses will appear, because ultimately it's also subject to market demand. In Northdale in particular, the city listened to the reasoning that the zoning should be a lot more flexible with commercial uses on the ground floor along streets other than big arterials. And not only does the zoning have that, it also requires convertible frontages along some side-streets, so that commercial uses in the future are not precluded. There's a lot of possible commercial spaces.
Which is to say that the flip side of flexible mixed-use zoning is that it can (and should, IMHO) have multiple uses depending on the actual market demands in the neighbourhood. Right now there's a fair number of empty, new ground-floor commercial spaces in and near Northdale, plus more coming with the Sage development at Hickory/Lester, among others. There is not a clear municipal rationale for forcing spaces to remain commercial-only if there are more in-demand uses for them.
You’re right when you say “There are no current commercial amenities there - commercial zoning does not mean that such uses will appear, because ultimately it's also subject to market demand.” Commercial zoning doesn’t necessarily mean that commercial spaces will be built, but in this case a development was approved at least in small part due its very mixed-use. If the City approves developments that meet its planning goals but might not bear any relation to market realities*, and then promptly approves an application to have some or all of the commercial component switched to residential, we can guess what proposals will look like and what the finished products’ uses will be.
You’re not wrong that there is commercial space in the area, and I’m not sure what concessions if any were made to the developer here, but I think if the City approves something, it should stay that way in extreme cases. It’s clear in this area that to some extent municipal goals of a sustainable mixed-use neighbourhood conflict with the developer’s best bottom line, which would probably be best-served by high-density residential-only. If the original approval struck a balance between those in the view of city planners, I think there needs to be an extremely strong rationale why a change should be approved. Has there really been a material change in market conditions since the original approval? I can’t say, but I think there needs to be thorough documentation of that.
*I am not suggesting that this developer was duplicitous or disingenuous when submitting their application for the development. I am saying that, without requiring a strong rationale for changes, it’s easy to imagine developers getting approved for strong mixed-usage without due diligence on market demand, then after construction has started saying “turns out there was no demand- we want to switch the commercial to more apartments.”