Margaret Atwood faced ‘vile’ treatment over Annex condo criticism, lawyer says

Share

Author Margaret Atwood has been subjected to "vile" treatment on social media for criticizing an eight-storey condominium complex planned on Davenport Road near her home in the city's Annex neighbourhood, her lawyer told a Toronto City Council committee Wednesday.

"Notwithstanding the occasionally vile and consistently misrepresentative treatment of Margaret and her neighbours in the commercial, and on social media, they are not opposed to redevelopment of 321 Davenport," Ms. Atwood's lawyer, Michael Melling, told councillors, adding that he had spoken with other neighbours who agreed. "They recognize that it is an underutilized site."

The acclaimed writer herself was a no-show as Toronto and East York Community Council debated the plans for the 16-unit building, which already has the blessing of city planners. On a motion from local councillor Joe Cressy, the committee put off a decision on whether to support the application, which is already before the Ontario Municipal Board, and called for a mediation session between residents and the developer in the hopes of reaching a settlement without a full-blown OMB hearing.

The proposal has alarmed neighbours who live on nearby Admiral Road right behind the development, a group that includes Ms. Atwood and Loblaw chief executive officer Galen Weston Jr. Last week, Ms. Atwood engaged in a Twitter battle with urbanist critics who accused her of being a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) and of trying to block higher-density construction near her wealthy neighbourhood.

Mr. Melling said Ms. Atwood and her neighbours do not oppose a mid-rise building on the site. But they are concerned that the proposal does not conform with the neighbourhood protection policies in the city's Official Plan or with the city's own guidelines for mid-rise buildings.

"These concerns can, and should, and ultimately will, I believe, be resolved," Mr. Melling told the committee, saying the developer has shown a willingness to talk.

Ms. Atwood, in a written submission to the committee, had raised concerns about the plan's call for the destruction of a neighbour's chestnut tree, warning it could result in a lawsuit. Other neighbours said the eight-storey building – where a two-storey building now stands – was too high and too big to be so close to low-rise homes. However, other mid-rise developments have been built in the area.

Robert Cooper, president of the Alterra Group of Cos. that is developing the site, later told the committee that the company had already worked hard to make changes demanded by city planners and residents over the past three years.

Mr. Cooper said he hoped those who still oppose the plan would change their minds. He called on the committee to overlook "the public opposition of a few very high-profile residents" and approve the development as "appropriate intensification within an urban neighbourhood." But he later said he supported mediation.

The brouhaha over such a small building ignited a debate about how residents and the city's planning rules can shut out new development in desirable low-rise residential areas such as the Annex, making housing even less affordable in the city. Mr. Cressy, the city's local councillor, said Annex residents know that the city's Official Plan calls for intensification "on the edges" of neighbourhoods like theirs. But residents still have the right to oppose changes they fear will harm them, he said.

"The neighbourhood understands change is coming. They have recognized that it is a development site. … But they want to ensure that some outstanding issues, overlooked issues, trees and others, are addressed," Mr. Cressy told community council. "I want to be clear. There are some who say no, always. But there is nothing NIMBY about supporting development but demanding that it is done right."