King City Corporate Center (KCCC) presented to the public their plans for developing their 100 acres on south side of King Rd/east of Jane on 9/19. This development is extremely important to the future sustainability of King. In the King City Official Plan these lands are designated as a prestige employment area. What does this mean? i) This an area for prestige employment (i.e. it is not for residential, nor for factories, nor for commercial/retail). It is for a place of work with high paying jobs. ii) This is a major entrance to the community. iii) There are not many opportunities anywhere on the Oak Ridges Moraine to do such a development; and certainly in King City, our largest village, there is no other opportunity.
I am very disappointed that the proponent is proposing to convert 20% of the prestige employment to retail/commercial. They argue that i) York Region has made modifications to the YR Official Plan allowing 20% conversion. This may be true but that doesn’t mean it is appropriate for King; maybe zero is appropriate or maybe something less than 20%. ii) They also claim that their market study indicates a need for such.
Frankly, I was surprised to hear several attendees (i.e. members of the public) expressing enthusiasm about retail/commercial at the site as work is well underway for the development of a large commercial subdivision at north west corner of Dufferin and King Road. For the latter an application for a zoning by-law amendment has been submitted to permit the commercial development of the subject lands with a mix of commercial uses, including a supermarket and other retail commercial, restaurants, automobile service station/gas bar, business and professional offices, banks and financial services, health care services and a range of other commercial uses. A public meeting for the application was held April 16, 2012; the report from that meeting can be read here.
I guess I should not be surprised as it is surely virtually impossible for members of the public to keep track of applications. Until there is construction it is hard to really understand what is going to happen. And I must admit that the King/Dufferin development is still not approved in terms of permitted uses.
KCCC’s proposal to convert employment lands to commercial/retail is very serious. i) Could two commercial/retail centres be successful 4 km apart? ii) What would happen to the downtown core of King City between the two centres? iii) Prestige employment is important to any community because of the number of relatively high paying jobs created as opposed to the low value jobs associated with retail/commercial.
The statutory public meeting for this development still needs to be scheduled. Stay tuned!
I think mixed use is a good idea in any development. Workers can go for lunch without driving anywhere and a few residents at the public meeting said they needed more cafe type places to congregate socially. A copy/print shop would be another handy amenity. As an example, there are old industrial/commercial developments in Vaughan along Hwy 7 between Keele and Jane that seem to be doing quite well. In the end, these places must prosper.
Hello Gloria,
I too think that some degree of “mixed” use is appropriate: providing lunch opportunities for employees does not require 20%.
A retail component of 20% or less of this proposed development is not unreasonable for the following reasons.
1) Convenience to the future employed in this prestige employment/corporate centre will avoid additional traffic in the interior roadways from people looking for food and beverages.
2) A retail/commercial component could serve the many residents of the south-west quadrant who have on the most part had to shop in Maple and elsewhere.
3) Provide shopping opportunities for the new residential community adjacent to the King City Museum.
4) Reduce the consumption of gasoline of having to get to King Rd./Dufferin St’s Marketplace from western points of the village.
5) Yes, to some extent downtown King City will suffer but other than Bowood Properties and Shopper’s Drug Mart, no property owners that are operating retail businesses have come forth with a plan, monies or interest in developing a downtown core in the 12 years I have lived here. In fact the “For Rent” signs appear to be multiplying lately and the list of out of business hasn’t got any shorter.
6) Would I shop at our flag ship “shopping centre” entirely depends on whether I will have business to do eastbound on King Road from Jane St. So, in all FAIRNESS for competition to get business from commuters and residents heading to Highway 400 or from Highway 400 equal shopping opportunities should be provide to all eastbound or westbound on King Road. Presuming that the entire population of King City will frequent one particular shopping centre is unrealistic and at best not in the spirit of contemporary capitalism.
Hi Sheila,
i) I too agree that we don’t want employees at our prestige employment centre “clogging” interior roadways looking for lunch. So indeed some %commercial retail will be required UNLESS a tenant were to provide full service cafeterias and tuck shops for the employees. But, even without the latter I don’t believe 20% is required.
ii) Your suggestion that residents in SW quadrant and the ones in the new development adjacent to the museum should have shopping in the neighbourhood is a very different scenario than currently prescribed under the King City OPA. I guess it would be interesting to ask the people buying in the neighbourhood adjacent to the museum if they were seeking to live across from a small shopping centre. I think a decision to live in a rural community includes a decision to not have retail/commercial choices at your finger tips, so to speak.
iii) I share your frustration at how slow the revival of KC centre is.
I am glad you are paying attention to this application. It is an important one. The public meeting is scheduled for 10/29 at 6PM.
We attended the meeting at the library regarding the proposed KCCC and were impressed with the proposed plan. Having retail/commercial space in an area such as this seems appropriate, not just for the people working there but also for the residents on the West side. With the growth happening in King it is also wonderful that the kids in the area have a chance to find local employment.
Hi, I wonder if you are aware that there is a commercial/retail project underway at the north west corner of Dufferin and King Road. This project will result in about 150,000 sq. ft of commercial/retail; I don’t know all of the businesses which will be there but it does include a grocery store and there will be restaurants along with other services & retail. This amount of space is the same as the proponent at King Rd/Jane is requesting. I have a very hard time believing that King City with its ultimate population of 12,000 (versus current at 5,000) requires all this commercial/retail space. Certainly the market analysis conducted when we were creating our Official Plan did not think that so much was required. I understand that the proponent has conducted their own market analysis and think that it is justified; our Staff is getting that peer reviewed. It is a very important issue as having too much retail/commercial space is not a happy story; approving the right amount of space for this purpose (i.e. commercial/retail) is one aspect of doing good planning.
The Public Meeting is this Monday (10/29); I encourage you to come to learn more and/or provide your perspective. The Staff report is now available at http://www.king.ca. Thanks for writing.
What part of us being on this website led you to wonder if we were aware of what was happening at King & Dufferin?
King is expanding, the 400 ramp is no longer a donkey path, changes are happening and as residents of the west side we would like some amenities too!
Hi…Glad that I have been able to inform you as to what is happening on the other side of your village.
I am glad that at least one of the posts is from folks who actually attended the info session.
FYI Prestige employment means highly skilled careers rather than servers, retail clerks and other “MCjobs” i.e. low level service jobs such as serving hamburgers. It is not intended as a place to find part time, summer or student jobs. No, a rural township of villages like King simply cannot provide every student with a summer or part time job! It can and presently does designate a place where there will be high paying career opportunities. Corporate offices, IT businesses, light manufacturing (like solar panels, wind turbines, computers etc), and a community college or training institution are the sorts of permitted uses.
Yes, I agree that employees need somewhere to meet for coffee and have lunch. Just as hospitals provide cafeterias and coffee shops for their staff, so too could a large, central office building provide these services for the whole campus – well within walking distance. This does not require any % let alone 20% of the land. Building a smart centre of big box stores around a huge paved parking lot does not create Prestige Employment. No one living in King should expect a shopping centre across the street. These present applications are an example of urban sprawl that many folks moved to King to avoid! Consider reading the articles in the Sentinel this week. We all need to consider each other’s informed and well- considered comments.
Hi Susan, you have added significantly to the discussion and assessment of what should happen at Jane/King Rd. thanks, Debbie
The proposed plan by King City Corporate Center (KCCC) to convert “20% of the prestige employment to retail/commercial” (posted by Debbie Schaefer in Planning, The Issues on Oct. 2nd, 2012 ) is, in my view, an indication of wise planning for both immediate and future needs of the adjacent community where I have resided for over 40 years.
The focus of King Council should be not on blocking retail/commercial employment and complimentary services to the prestige office sector but rather on taking this proactive opportunity to ensure that broad diversity of business and retail/commercial enterprises align with the vision of prosperity and sustainability that has been a hallmark of our municipality.
Hi Leslie, I am glad that you are engaged in this very important subject. I do not agree with you. As we speak an equally large commercial/retail site is being build 4 km east at Dufferin/King Rd. I do not believe that King City with its future population of 12,000 can support two developments like this. Plus, in addition there is the core of King City which I hope is going to be developed. I can appreciate that the KCCC application looks enticing when viewed in isolation; but indeed, it cannot be looked at in isolation. Need to look at everything that is happening in the area.
Some very valid comments and perspectives have been posted here by other residents of this community. I have found, however, that the responses tend to be biased, terse and closed minded. So I have to ask – is it not Council’s role to represent the interests of the community and all of its residents, rather than a select few of its allies?
I was disappointed in the recent decision to refuse the KCCC development application, based on the arguments brought forward by Councilors and residents who oppose the plan – especially when so many others are clearly in support, and have provided realistic and tangible input.
For example – opposing this development because there should be “something better” has so far, been unrealistic. If King City does not have the population to support a retail development, then how could it possibly support a large corporate headquarters??? It is the very reason that a company like IBM and others would not move to King City, because there is a small population, and access to an appropriately skilled workforce is limited in any rural community. If, in fact a large organization has already come forward and indicated interest in relocating to King, then I would be okay being proven wrong. Until then, I hope this argument does not endure.
To the comment that “living in a rural community includes a decision to not have retail/commercial choices at your fingertips”. This attitude is clearly not the consensus of our community, and contradicts the notions of positive community development, economic advancement, sustainability, and local job creation. More retail and commercial are greatly needed in this community for many reasons – demand underlying them all.
Finally – in my opinion, anyone with the audacity to criticize what they deem to be “low value work – servers, retail clerks and other “MCjobs” should be ashamed of these comments. Many people in our society rely on these types of jobs to survive – adults and teenagers, none of who should ever be discriminated against for their skill level.
Hi…I respect your right to disagree with the Council decision to refuse the application. And my intent in my response is not to attempt to persuade you to think differently. What I intend to do is to simply give you some information. i) To use the example of IBM as a potential business at the site; yes, it is highly unlikely that the whole work force would be found to be living in King Township. What would be important is that the work force could get to the site with a reasonable commute and that there would be the opportunity for more of its employees to live in the area. ii) When moving to an area, people should do due diligence to understand what the future will bring in terms of development. It is true some areas have plans to develop and to have commercial/retail. Some areas do not. Accordingly, some areas are desirable to those who want to live in close proximity to retail/commercial; but not not all areas will be desirable. It is a buyers choice.
Hi Debbie,
I really believe the Prestige employment should have a large office building (architecturally controlled) for a large company like BMW head office or Johnson & Johnson head office of some sort with some beautiful landscaped retail/commercial on the properties that are viable to the community. It wouldn’t look good if all the shops are vacant with lease signs on them.
OR if the prestige employment area becomes one of those office plazas or low-rise multiple office units where you will see multiple offices for lease then I DO NOT think that would be good, as I’m sure you will see a lot of small office businesses leasing it and a lot end up vacant. It has to be one big large company building occupying whole building. If not then I rather just see retail/commercial – as with multiple small offices, it just won’t work at an area like King City.
As well, King City needs to see improvements or newly high-tech architecturally blended in community recreation centres and library. Like the Oak Ridges Community Centre in Richmond Hill or the one by Angus Glen those types in King City to facilitate the growing residents and the affluent demographic living there. The existing one would not work unless under huge renovations.
I hope all my thoughts get brought up into consideration.
Thanks!
Hello Sebastian,
The concerns you have voiced about some of the options for the Prestige Employment area are very much aligned with my thinking. And in general are the reasons that I and rest of Council refused the application put forth.
King City is growing (will double!) and for sure the municipal infrastructure, such as community centres, is not adequate for King City of tomorrow; and indeed even today it is inadequate. We are looking at partnerships with some of the educational institutes in King City to develop a plan in a manner which is sustainable.
Debbie