[jje1000]

Some more puzzling details on the cow:

Just who gave approval for Markham’s cow statue?
Councillors who unanimously gave the go ahead last summer now say they weren’t given the whole story.

The Markham public art advisory committee said nay, twice, to a proposal for the larger than life stainless steel cow statue on stilts, according to minutes from meetings, which weren’t made public until this week.

Councillors, who unanimously approved the display last summer, said they weren’t given the whole story.

“We were never told the public art committee didn’t want the cow,” said Ward 4 councillor Karen Rea. “We were deliberately not given information by staff,” she said. “In my opinion, this is enough. It should be brought back for discussion, and frankly, the statue should be moved.”

The entire cow debacle has left many residents and councillors wondering, in the face of so much opposition, how did the Holstein manage to get hoisted?

“I felt like from day one, there was something wrong with the process,” said Taleen Der Haroutiounian, vice-chair of the art advisory committee. “Even though the committee said no, it seemed like what we were saying didn’t matter,” she said.

The proposal for an 11-metre high cow statue to be placed in a small park, in the centre of a crescent surrounded by homes, first came before the public art committee more than two years ago.

Despite the history, the committee felt the cow didn’t fit into its surroundings. In March 2015, committee members rejected the donation after being worried about “safety, esthetics, and the choice of location.”

The next time they said no, in May 2015, the committee said “another location would be suitable” and demanded public consultation.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/08/04/just-who-gave-approval-for-markhams-cow-statue.html

Is story behind Markham’s controversial cow sculpture a tall tale?
The farmer who raised Charity — a prizewinning dairy cow now immortalized in an eight-metre-high statue in the middle of a subdivision — says the animal never set hoof in Markham.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...n-of-charitys-life-story-a-bunch-of-bull.html

 

[W. K. Lis]

Did you know that many Parisians wanted the Eiffel Tower torn down because they considered it an eyesore?

See link.

 

[Johnny Au]

Did you know that many Parisians wanted the Eiffel Tower torn down because they considered it an eyesore?

See link.

Meanwhile, Kings Island near Cincinnati, Kings Dominion in Virginia, and Carowinds in the Carolinas are stuck with a replica of an ugly tower. Same with Las Vegas. Even Tokyo was stuck with an ugly tower, until they decided to paint it orange and stick another tower inside it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

No surprise.

It's going to be a nightmare': Residents worry Woodbine bike lanes will increase traffic, endanger children
Construction work on 3.6-km bike lane begins Friday

See link.

"I think it's going to slow down traffic a lot," Blewett said. "And for people going home this is already a very busy corridor at rush hour and I think it's going to force people to cut through side streets. There's a school. There's a park. There's lots of kids in this neighbourhood."

Blewett would like to know how many cyclists will use the lanes and if it will justify jeopardizing the safety of the people in this neighbourhood.

Won't someone think about the children?...

...on their bicycles?

Just don't chauffeur your fat kids around. Let them ride their bikes, they might get exercise at the same time (oh the horror). Personally, I want the traffic to slow down... a lot.

 

[pman]

This WOTC hysteria is ridiculous. People use a variety of transport modes, including cycling. The notion that road space should be exclusively for cars is as inequitable as it is unsafe. I say this as someone who travels almost exclusively by car out of necessity not choice, because I live in such a transit desert. Even as a driver, I welcome the physical separation and safety that bike lanes provide.

 

[W. K. Lis]

This WOTC hysteria is ridiculous. People use a variety of transport modes, including cycling. The notion that road space should be exclusively for cars is as inequitable as it is unsafe. I say this as someone who travels almost exclusively by car out of necessity not choice, because I live in such a transit desert. Even as a driver, I welcome the physical separation and safety that bike lanes provide.

A hundred years ago, streets were for everyone. There were no signs prohibiting parking, there were no traffic signals, there were no painted traffic lanes, and there were no rules about jaywalking because people actually used the streets for walking.

From link.

From link.

 

[Johnny Au]

This WOTC hysteria is ridiculous. People use a variety of transport modes, including cycling. The notion that road space should be exclusively for cars is as inequitable as it is unsafe. I say this as someone who travels almost exclusively by car out of necessity not choice, because I live in such a transit desert. Even as a driver, I welcome the physical separation and safety that bike lanes provide.

Don't forget that car commercials vastly outnumber commercials promoting walking, cycling, and public transit combined. Even walking, cycling, public transit, and electric vehicles combined.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Don't forget that car commercials vastly outnumber commercials promoting walking, cycling, and public transit combined. Even walking, cycling, public transit, and electric vehicles combined.

That's why cars are so expensive. They include the cost of the commercials in them.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

So last night was fun! My feed was about the same.

Alex Bozikovic‏Verified account@alexbozikovic
So tonight on my Twitter, literary giant @MargaretAtwood acted the NIMBY and called @ShawnMicallef a developer shill. How about you?

Margaret Atwood joins fellow Annex residents to fight condo project

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well, you got to love when the Annex champagne socialists holding hands with the blue-bloods.

AoD

 

[Avenue]

Isn't this exactly how Jane Jacobs would have acted if she was alive?

 

[smably]

At this point, isn't Jane Jacobs just the blank canvas onto which we project our own opinions on planning and development?

She was a woman of sufficiently complex ideas that you can find a quote of hers to back up nearly any idea about cities, no matter how outrageous. I remember reading a column that referenced her skepticism for expressways and megaprojects to argue that she would have fought against Waterloo Region's LRT, an urban project if I've ever seen one. Similarly, I've seen people call upon her libertarian streak to say that she would have supported loosening zoning, while people on the other side quote her defence of human-scale streets to say she would have opposed development and intensification.

Anyway, this is probably going off-topic, but I think it's time to retire the "what would Jane Jacobs do" trope and come up with our own arguments to support our opinions.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At this point, isn't Jane Jacobs just the blank canvas onto which we project our own opinions on planning and development?

She was a woman of sufficiently complex ideas that you can find a quote of hers to back up nearly any idea about cities, no matter how outrageous. I remember reading a column that referenced her skepticism for expressways and megaprojects to argue that she would have fought against Waterloo Region's LRT, an urban project if I've ever seen one. Similarly, I've seen people call upon her libertarian streak to say that she would have supported loosening zoning, while people on the other side quote her defence of human-scale streets to say she would have opposed development and intensification.

Anyway, this is probably going off-topic, but I think it's time to retire the "what would Jane Jacobs do" trope and come up with our own arguments to support our opinions.

Well said - and me being absolutely uncharitable always love to bring things back to a full circle re: WWJJD - I quote a rather popular novel (especially of late):

We may call Eurydice forth from the world of the dead, but we cannot make her answer, and when we turn to look at her we glimpse her only for a moment, before she slips from our grasp and flees.

AoD

 

[smably]

Here's a doozy: http://portlandarea.org/current-challenge/

At the busy corner of Portland Street and Adelaide Street West (former Para Paints), developers have proposed a mammoth 12-story condo and commercial building. Not only do we feel the size and density of this building would be an eyesore at this location, but this property faces some of the few remaining Heritage Preservation factory buildings and historic ‘worker row houses’ in this neighbourhood.

12 storeys! Mammoth! Eyesore!

It gets better. Their petition demands:

1. Height restriction on all four sides, to blend in with the immediately surrounding historic two-story worker row houses and factory buildings.

2. Free-flowing traffic on both Portland Street and Adelaide Street West.

3. Greenspace along the entire Portland Street side, plus roof gardens.

The best part for its sheer ridiculousness is their counter-proposal:

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wonder in what built form does said citizens for responsible growth reside in. Mammoth condo commercials, perhaps?

AoD