housing
The record misleads
34 to 50 Southport Street, Toronto; Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit a 32-storey building replacing approved townhouses
Council is being asked to approve an amendment to replace 16 previously approved townhouses with a 32-storey tower containing 397 units, adding significant density to the site. The application has generated sustained community opposition focused on infrastructure capacity, shadow impacts, parking, and a departure from the 2012 approved plan that promised townhouses.
Councillor Saxe moved to send item to council without recommendations.
Who did what
- Councillor Josh Matlow (Ward 12, Toronto-St. Paul's) movedSupported the motion
From the floor
“The subway station at peak times 10 12 people deep it can be five or six trains go by and that you can't get on 20 25 minute wait and very crowded. Students are required to eat their lunch sitting on the floor in the hallway because the auditorium can no longer accommodate all the people. So many towers in that area now that the cell phone reception in my apartment is so bad that there's maybe only one or two square meters where I can get cell reception.”A resident
“This proposal would permit three towers of 65,75 and 96 stories with 2342 residential units. It will demolish 210 existing rental homes and replace them with 216 replacement rental units. That combination demands a higher standard of public interest protection.”Resident of Ward 11 and a candidate for city council in Ward 11 University Rosedale
“I like the idea, but building three high-rise buildings with them expecting us to live for 5 years and probably a lot longer somewhere else when a lot of us have memory problems, dementia, Alzheimer's, heart problems, and multiple other problems.”Tenant in the building
“This is an older building and it's rent controlled and so when they build new buildings, we're going to lose rent control buildings for future generations. I would like for the city to think about the people before the profits.”A resident
“The College Park redevelopment builds on the site's iconic legacy while proposing new uses, amenities, and housing to create a livable contemporary urban experience. the project will be constructed in phases starting with the north tower, which will include the rental replacement.”Planner and partner with Urban Strategies and here on behalf of GWL Realy Advisors, the applicant
11 more people spoke
“I've come to appreciate how unequal it actually is. The applicant has the resources to commission planners, engineers, technical studies, and legal counsel. We residents just have our lived experience and whatever time we can find between work and personal responsibilities. But despite this, more than 1600 people signed a petition.”Resident of 60 Southport since 2019; naturopathic doctor and registered psychotherapist
“Planning decisions don't just shape buildings, they shape communities. Residents should be able to trust the approval plans won't later become something fundamentally different without a compelling public planning reason. This is not a minor amendment.”Resident at 45 Southport Street
“Building C is a menace waiting to happen. Almost 65% of the proposed building C units start at 450 square ft, not suitable for families. Building C is 10 times the size of the land it's perched on. It's a 250% variance of the official plan.”Resident at 20 Southport Street
“We are fully in support of a staff recommendations for the application which recommend approval. the proposed tower which is now on the table will fit on the site has been designed to be generally in line with the tall building design guidelines and will step up from the 26 and 29 story heights.”Planning consultant for the applicant
“The Swansea secondary plan was set at a maximum of four times the lot area. The proposed amendment is arbitrarily crossing that out and changing it to six or more. If a reviewer isn't clear which way east or west is in relation to our building or what direction the sun is shining from, then I don't find their assertions very credible.”Director on the condo board at 60 Southport and resident since 2012
“As a three-time cancer survivor, that has real consequences for my mental health. It also has real financial consequence. Once that tower goes up, no one will choose a sha a shadowed south facing unit when there's a north facing one available. My value will drop. My property value will drop.”Resident at 60 Southport with two teenage children
“We moved in in 1997 to raise family. Our building was built first in 1972. Then other three condo buildings were erected. and then Swansy Village which are only six to eight story high and all these already affected our our stabilities and now proposing and building these two and now proposing third one is going to be tremendous.”Resident at 60 Southport
“My concern is that this site has gradually moved away from that vision. Density alone does not build communities. People do and people need spaces to buy groceries, meet neighbors, support local businesses, and live their everyday lives.”Resident
“The town homes are the only part of the planned build that made any sense to the need of the community. Removing them would be foolish. It would prove the greed of the builders and would be an insult to our community. It's snake oil sales tactics and it shouldn't be happening.”Resident at 24 Southport
“I'm struggling to understand how this Southport application, which is merely an 8-minute drive from Park, reflects that same vision. This 32story condominium development is seemingly exclusively catering to a luxury crowd with a half million public art investment attempting to offset the inclusion of any affordable units.”Resident of Ward 4 Parkdale High Park
“I do think building C is too much and that we can wait till November for renegotiation here. That would be the best here because it's too destructive to the community to create such a surge of density, especially given the recommendations which seek to remove long-term parking places.”Resident at 60 and 65 Southport Street for about 5 years and 11 years nearby
Also in this item
• The motion to refer to council without recommendation indicates unresolved concerns by the council member; Perks stated 'I have work still to do' on this application.
• Sustained community opposition: 24 out of 25 deputations opposed the application, with a petition bearing 1,648 signatures from residents.
• The 32-storey tower is designed to exceed the Swansea Secondary Plan density cap of 4x lot area, with a proposed density of approximately 9.93 times lot area, a 250% variance from the official plan.
• Significant shadow impact on adjacent 60 Southport building; the planning report acknowledges increased traffic, shadow, light loss, wind, reduced open space, and pressure on infrastructure.
The journey
Wed, Jul 8 · Toronto and East York Community Council · amended
Wed, Jul 29 · Toronto City Council · not yet heard
→ referred onward
Time to act
You can weigh in
Residents can depute at the upcoming City Council vote on this application.
Decision
Referred to City Council without recommendation; Council voted to move the item forward without a recommendation and to continue negotiations.
On video
Jump to this item in the meeting video
Why is this story here?
Big deal at city hallThis Official Plan amendment and zoning by-law amendment changes the maximum permitted density at the site by 150% (from 4x to 9.93x lot area) and eliminates 16 approved family townhouses in favor of a 32-storey tower. This is a permanent departure from a 2012 approved plan and closes options for future councils to revert to lower-density development. The application also modifies the Swansea Secondary Plan, a policy document that took years to develop. These are multi-year capital commitments with hard-to-reverse consequences.Felt nowShadow impacts, traffic congestion, parking pressure, and school capacity directly affect residents of Swansea and the adjacent condo building (60 Southport) in their ordinary weeks: children walking to school on narrow streets, seniors navigating crowded transit, residents experiencing light loss. The construction will take years, creating ongoing disruption. Infrastructure strain (transit, sewers, schools) is felt now and will worsen with 397 additional units. This is present-week effect on a recognizable group, not a future proposal.
Stories are ordered by how much weight a decision carries and how directly it reaches daily life. They rise as a decision date approaches and fall as they age.