A 40-storey high-rise in Preston was once again the talk of the town amongst Cambridge councillors, with councillors rejecting a proposed recommendation that would drop that number to 16 storeys.
However, there could still be life in Cambridge for the towering development.
Councillors met earlier in the week to discuss the potential of scaling back the 40-storey project, located at 210, 218, 226 King St. E., and 229 Queenston Rd., down to 16 storeys total, which would be the upper threshold of what the city’s official plan would recommend.
That recommendation was brought forward by city staff, but it received plenty of pushback from various council members, continuing to point to previous concerns of traffic congestion that the project would create, as well as taking issue with the project’s overall scale, saying it simply doesn’t fit with the city.
“Once this goes up, you set that precedent that we’re okay with it, and it goes to the next one, and it goes to the next one,” said Councillor Adam Cooper.
“I just wonder when do you say, just based on the experience that any common-sense person has in this area, that it can’t handle this. What point do you say, ‘enough is enough.'”
On the other side of the coin, some councillors pushed that the development would still bring needed housing to the region. Some, including Councillor Scott Hamilton, also stated that reducing the project to 16-storeys would be a welcome compromise, given the alternative.
“The reason why I’m going to support staff’s approval is that I think turning this proposal down here risks a building that is actually much bigger being put into this space,” said Hamilton.
“I think it is a good compromise; 16 storeys is a lot better than 40 storeys, for everyone that was worried about that tremendous height and density.”
Hamilton also said that the project is in line with previous plans and overall needs for the area in the years ahead, saying that it may be the higher threshold of what was recommended, but it’s still within the bounds of what the area can handle.
“Part of our role as councillors is to pay attention to what this neighbourhood was 20 years ago, but ask, with the future direction of the city, where will it be in 20 years,” mentioned Hamilton.
“If we look at the Preston Secondary Plan that staff is instituting, it is a minimum of 3 storeys and a maximum of 16; so this actually fits the plan of what staff have been recommending go into this area.”
Councillor Nicholas Ermeta, though, said that the traffic impact would be too heavy to allow across the already busy stretch of the city.
“I’m still uncomfortable with the height, so I will not be supporting it,” Ermeta stated.
“From my standpoint, it’s taking a stand. I think the traffic in that area is horrendous.”
While councillors discussed and debated the benefits and drawbacks of a project at the tower’s scale, it raised plenty of questions about the development itself and its overall impacts.
However, while there were plenty of questions to be asked, there were no representatives from the developer, ABS Space Investment Corps, to answer them.
“I can’t believe that they are not here to allow us to ask questions about the proposal,” said Councillor Corey Kimpson.
“This is an application that’s generated a lot of interest in the public. We have worked hard to have engagement from the public, and I believe that members of council should have had the opportunity to ask questions directly from them.”
Council ultimately elected to reject the proposal in a fairly split 5-4 vote.
Those in favour of the recommendation included Scott Hamilton, Sheri Roberts, Ross Earnshaw, and Mike Devine. Those opposed included Jan Liggett, Nocholas Ermeta, Corey Kimpson, Adam Cooper, and Helen Shwery.
The decision from council, though, does not necessarily put an end to the project’s future in Preston, as the city has until July 29 to make an overall decision on the project itself, before the developer has the option to turn to the Ontario Land Tribunal.
ABS Space Investment Corps can request an appeal to council’s decision, which could allow the project to continue once again.
Comments