Waterloo_Guy said:
I know that most people don't care.
Click to expand...

You state that people don't know what a POPS is, but then say people don't care that the one on John isn't being honoured. Maybe people don't care because they don't understand the idea of POPS? Im sure if you told people that the space was built as a public space, that those people would then suddenly care that it is being used as private space.

Thank god decisions in this city aren't based on the opinions of uninformed citizens as you tend to think they should be.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
I don't think it's a big deal. It doesn't compromise civic trust since almost nobody knows or cares about this stuff anyway. I doubt I've met a single person who knows or cares what a POPS is. In the grand scheme of things it just doesn't matter. Although I certainly want that POPS on John Street restored, I know that most people don't care.

As for when they go into sales, since they have made a deal on approvals, it would make sense for them to go into sales at any time that they want now.
Click to expand...


It might not be a big deal if you interview random people on the subway or GO Train, but a number of locals (and their associations) would have been involved in the public planning process and would have been quite interested in the provision and use of that public space. It's also worth noting that that publicly accessible open space would have been an integral part of the City's endorsement of the project (assuming that it wasn't forced on them by the OMB). How a development meets the street *is* a big deal (it should be an even bigger deal).
 
interchange42 said:
Do we know that it was Pinnacle who fenced off the space, or whether it was the condo corp which fenced it off?
42
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who put up the fence, what I do know is Pinnacle has retained ownership of the commercial spaces in which La Carnita and Sweet Jesus are tenants and The City is taking the necessary legal actions to reclaim the space for the public but it's a complex process as it involves the owner and the condo corp.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Thank god decisions in this city aren't based on the opinions of uninformed citizens as you tend to think they should be.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if you read more slowly you could understand what I wrote. I have noticed a lot of elitism on this forum that doesn't sit well with me. Normal people are seen as stupid and architectural merit is only understood by an enlightened few. I would rather be ruled by those uninformed citizens than by some of the philosopher kings that decide what counts as good architecture or planning.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Perhaps if you read more slowly you could understand what I wrote. I have noticed a lot of elitism on this forum that doesn't sit well with me. Normal people are seen as stupid and architectural merit is only understood by an enlightened few. I would rather be ruled by those uninformed citizens than by some of the philosopher kings that decide what counts as good architecture or planning.
Click to expand...
I think you need to reread your first post. You said that it is not important that a developer (or ?) did not honour an agreement to create and maintain a public space. (For which they were allowed to build higher or denser.) Many people called you out on this. This is nothing to do with differing views on what is or is not good architecture where people here do have very strong and often conflicting opinions.
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
Perhaps if you read more slowly you could understand what I wrote. I have noticed a lot of elitism on this forum that doesn't sit well with me. Normal people are seen as stupid and architectural merit is only understood by an enlightened few. I would rather be ruled by those uninformed citizens than by some of the philosopher kings that decide what counts as good architecture or planning.
Click to expand...

I've read literally thousands of posts on these forums and can't even get close to coming around to the assertion that "normal people are seen as stupid and architectural merit is only understood by an enlightened few."
 
Waterloo_Guy said:
I would rather be ruled by those uninformed citizens than by some of the philosopher kings that decide what counts as good architecture or planning.
Click to expand...

Or, you know... you can inform those citizens and help them develop an educated opinion, instead of just leaving them be on matters that could be important to them. It doesn't take a philosopher king to do so. It takes very little effort really.

You'll be surprised when you see how many 'normal people' actually do care about these things when they realize how it directly impacts them, their property, their neighbourhood, their families, kids, etc.
 
July City Council voted to SUPPORT this application at the OMB, as the City and developer have settled on terms for its development. The hearing is scheduled for October 24 of this year.

42
 
I hope it will be approved and i m tired that someone is always blocking this wonderful project.
Please build that Toronto.
These last days,we lack architectural beauty in Toronto.
This project could indeed save Toronto from architectural slums.
 
enrigue8 said:
I hope it will be approved and i m tired that someone is always blocking this wonderful project.
Please build that Toronto.
These last days,we lack architectural beauty in Toronto.
This project could indeed save Toronto from architectural slums.
Click to expand...

Great to have new and active forum users here, but your repetitive posts are getting very tiresome.
 
I don't think people need to be snarky towards him; he clearly wants to learn. I also don't think he is height-obsessed as some of our members; I think he takes a legitimate interest in how buildings look. (That said, there is way more to a building than how it looks, and perhaps more importantly is why a building looks a certain way.) I just figured someone should politely point out to him that repetitive posts aren't appreciated on the boards and the mods will likely be on his case soon if he doesn't change it up.
 
His comments towards the planning process are already quite opinionated. I'm not convinced.
 
modernizt said:
I don't think people need to be snarky towards him; he clearly wants to learn. I also don't think he is height-obsessed as some of our members; I think he takes a legitimate interest in how buildings look. (That said, there is way more to a building than how it looks, and perhaps more importantly is why a building looks a certain way.) I just figured someone should politely point out to him that repetitive posts aren't appreciated on the boards and the mods will likely be on his case soon if he doesn't change it up.
Click to expand...

I just want to learn and sometime, i express my opinion.
Normally this is the purpose of a forum.
That it.
:)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top