The development, as stated, is a four-building development. Of the four buildings, one will be a 60-bed emergency shelter for abused women and their children. This is one of the three-storey buildings at the north end of the property. The other three-storey building will be in the opposite corner of the north-end of the property, and will be geared-to-income apartments.
In addition, there will be two eight-storey apartment buildings built on the south side of the property that will house some 160 market-value apartments. The bottom two storeys will be joined podium-style, and will be commercial space.
This project was originally approved in 2003, but has been held up by an appeal to OMB by some NIMBY neighbours who refused to accept the women's shelter component. This was an intersting stance since the shelter is not adding 60 new spaces in the area. Rather, it is consolidating two nearby sites currently operated by Good Shepherd into this new location, so there is no net increase in shelter beds in the city.
OMB issued its decision in 2004. It makes for an interesting read. Here is the link to the decision:
http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions...96_%230684.pdf
The project suffered further delays as the architectual study component of the decision was manipulated by NIMBY's to stall its development. All the conditions set by the OMB ruling were met last year, clearing the way for construction, which hopefully will start sometime this year.
RTH I am curious on what basis you make your claim that Good Shepherd has a crappy track record. From what I understand, and from the content of the OMB decision, praise for the Good Shepherd's operations in the city was practically universal, even among the opponents of this specific project.