City
Restaurant row faces off against King Street condo
Trolling along King Street West, you'd expect signs to read, "Welcome, visitors!" and, perhaps, "Don't mind that stalled streetcar!" But now, banners declaring, "Say no to condo developments on restaurant row" are taking over King West street side signage.
The banners are in reference to the new 47-storey, 304-unit condo proposed for 321-333 King Street West — right in the heart of the Entertainment District's "restaurant row." If brought to fruition, the building will maintain its front heritage facade, which will be integrated into a three-storey podium, set atop a five-level underground parking garage.
And while developer King Financial Holdings is all but tickled about the plans, the restaurateurs running their businesses along King West are not. They have expressed a number of concerns, including that of a wind tunnel effect and blocked sunlight. But most of all, says Kit Kat owner Al Carbone, the development threatens to erode the culture and atmosphere of the King West restaurant strip.
Al has become somewhat of a spokesperson for the restaurateurs along King Street West, especially since some business owners find themselves tied to a lease under the developer's name. "But most of the restaurants here are on board," Al says. "They don't want to see a tall tower being built."
Al plans to speak in front of the Ontario Municipal Board at an upcoming meeting on October 3. His goal for that day is essentially to postpone; in his words, "To get a new date so we have more time to get the professionals we need working with us and to create more public awareness."
The public awareness aspect is already underway with the aforementioned banners and a Save Restaurant Row website with more information. Al says with the right lawyers and city planners on board, he's optimistic he can halt the 47-storey project.
But if recent amendments to the plan show anything, the prognosis for stalling development looks incredibly bleak. The original proposal (which the City rejected) included 323-333 King West but not the land at 321 King West. That land (which eagle-eyed readers will recognize as the current address of Fred's Not Here) has since been included. As well, that first proposal showed a tower that was 39 storeys with 201 units, but with the inclusion of 321 King West, the proposed structure is now six storeys taller with over 100 additional units."It is going in the wrong direction," Al concedes. "But, still, we have to do everything we can to stop it."
"We've been here for so long," he continues, citing his 25-year business residency on the Street, "and now that we've developed and nurtured it, they want to come in. It will destroy the block." Although the development plans indicate a commitment to retaining the facade, and therefore some of the historic appeal of the row, they also speak to the inevitable short and long-term effects of construction, such as road closures, pollution, and even the deconstruction, and subsequent reconstruction, of portions of the "restaurant row" facade.
Tony Elenis, president and CEO at Ontario Restaurant Hotel and Motel Association, says the restaurants in the immediate way of the proposed structure are only the beginning (though can't confirm exactly what will happen to the businesses currently in the condo's way). "In the long term," he says, "I'm afraid it will ruin what has taken so long to build. That area is just not going to be the same."
Al says he and the other restaurant owners on restaurant row aren't necessarily opposed to some sort of development on the street, adding that there's a 33-storey building plan that will threaten his back patio sun that he's decided to leave alone. But the scale of this proposed tower will, simply put, dominate over the strip.
"It's the wrong place for a tall tower."


Discussion
67 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
The people who move into those condos are probably going to be the same clientele that eats at those restaurants. I walk by every day and see it. It's not a good or bad thing. You're just moving the same people from dinner plates to 550 sq ft units.
Historic districts do not override zoning and they cannot enforce a use (i.e. cannot force a protected building to act as a restaurant) but they do make any physical alterations go before the landmarks board which effectively makes property owners find a way to meet the public interest. They also increase property values.
New York has a ton of these, and they help keep New York looking like New York. To see a map of them, go to the city's awesome GIS map (this is what you get when Bloomberg is not your mayor instead of a trailer park buffoon) and click on "Designated Historic District" in the Landmark section of the legend. http://gis.nyc.gov/doitt/nycitymap/
You can also read more about New York's system here:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/lpc/html/home/home.shtml
http://hdc.org/
Toronto needs to create historic district legislation, and King St is a good place to start. Who will champion this?
The developers saw the potential and moved in. What is happening here is far better for the city then a bunch of kids coming into the area on the weekends fighting and vomiting, costing 1000's of tax dollars in policing and cleaning.
It was inevitable that these clubs would close, they were a passing fad.
When neighbourhoods get destroyed, so does the soul of the community.
@steve: For YOU, these clubs were just 'a passing fad'-for others, they were a part of Toronto's city culture. What will come along to replace them, and what would/will you do when you're entertaining somebody from abroad and have no place to take them because all of the night clubs are gone due to the machinations of councilors like Vaughn and Perks?
Soon enough it seems everything will be condos in downtown Toronto
Poor babies.
Cry me a river.
Pick up a Now or Grid and do some exploring, you will be surprised what is happening in our city.
However, as someone mentioned above, if these restaurants can survive the development, they'll be better off in the long run. I'll still never eat there.
Quick poll: Which intersection do you find more appealing; John and Richmond (Milestone's, Jack Astor's, Chapters and a chain movie theatre, otherwise known as a Mississauga plaza in disguise, save for the Ballroom) or John & King with its mostly independent restaurants, better architecture and TIFF headquarters/theatre? If you answered John and Richmond then maybe you shouldn't be weighing in on the argument and stop trying to turn the entertainment district into a vertical suburb.
Always a great counter to any dispute. Well done Deputy Dildo.
It's difficult to approve one project then immediately reject all similar projects. While the OMB doesn't work on precedent in a pure form, this will be a test of that notion and the power of the City's design guidelines. I could really care less about these restaurants, but if approved this will really be a massive canyon of concrete and steel if built.
I think if the "restaurant row" gets replaced with condos (seems like a waste of space above these low rise buildings so close to the core, then the key is what goes back in those ground floor spaces. Require some community centres/etc for people living in the area.
Cities grow up like humans, vertically, in a physical sense. These condos will likely get built and, hopefully, their ground floors will be used for restaurants, grocery stores, and other amenities that will cater to the people that will live in them.
If any part of the city should be tall and cavernous, it should be downtown.
So congratulations Toronto, you're now New York and can fight over redevelopment of existing buildings rather than throw stuff up willy-nilly onto vacant lots.
Again, we need historic district preservation laws.
I don't get the "If something is working and thriving - redevelop it and make it bigger" mentality of the city planners. They are letting developers come into areas and creating sterile monstrosities that don't suite the area they are moving into or the effect it will have on things like congestion, transit, etc.
It all wreaks of dirty money or just plain incompetence to me on the part of the city.
Places like this are fun, but they are also organic. If you try to preserve it with a heritage designation or refuse to allow it to change it could end up dying ungracefully anyway instead of going out with a bang.
Low income housing in the Annex? Where would that go?
As for the parks, he's actually doing a pretty good job - that 'money through taxation from developments' (otherwise known as fees paid by developers) is what is funding the parks renovations and not property tax funds. That's the whole point. So yes, he is being transparent.
@Some Guy: I have a hard time believing Vaughan would be behind this condo development.
Yes there's a Gabby's, but have you even tried the others? Within a single block you get a wide array of international food (French, Cajun, Indian, etc), along with live music and great ambiance. I can't think of too many other streets in Toronto with those kind of options that you can walk to from work
Veal Marsala
Herb-crusted Veal Chop
Rigatoni alla Vodka
Smoked salmon
Bruschetta
etc...
One thing one of the mouthpieces did say was that the lane behind the row is used for garbage collection and delivery - anyone who thinks of buying a proposed condo facing north onto that lane should think twice but they're often purchased by people who don't plan to live in them.
Also, read recently that soon there will be something like 15,000+ condos coming on the market for rent. Can the city really support more of them?
We don't need more big glass towers in that area; there's one going up on the southwest corner of John and Adelaide and another one to the west of it. They'll all be looking into each other's windows (or Hooters). They all look alike. They are all mostly characterless and now with windows that pop out.
I don't eat in those restaurants - my reason for caring is to save the buildings - another few years, we'll have to go to small town/city Ontario or England to see old buildings.
How long before the developers want to tear down the old houses on Widmer? And then move west across Spadina to tear down all those "old" places? What about Draper Street? Is it save?
And now we have David Mirvish wanting to tear down all the buildings on the north side - why, if he wants to build more condos doesn't he build on top of the present structures?
England has an historic building preservation policy with teeth - every single church, for instance, is "Listed". We need one.
By the way, Adam Vaughan's name came up in the group waiting for the OMB hearing to start - seems he is generally loathed.
We're demolishing all the charm and scant history.
We're building at a rate which cannot be sustained.
And we're doing this without sufficient infrastructure to support the growth.
Leaving aside my sentiment about the city I've lived in for over 25 years, its sad to see Toronto fostering its demise.