News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

One risk is that residents making irrational objections to worthwhile developments would gain even more influence than they have now, swaying vulnerable city councillors while being spared from having to make their case before the OMB. That’s why there needs to be a culture shift at city hall. Without the OMB to act as a solid backstop against anti-development decisions, councillors will have to be more willing to say “no” to NIMBYs.

Knowing full well the real action will unfold later at the OMB, councillors tells constituents -- i.e. the NIMBY hordes -- exactly what they want to hear.

With few exceptions -- ex-councillors Anne Johnston and Kyle Rae come to mind -- Toronto's elected representatives prefer to toe the neighbourhood line than go head to head against their constituents.

This is exactly why I am appalled by this idea. Without the OMB, almost all local councillors will agree with their area's NIMBYs, who are vocal enough to turn the next election against a councillor they are angry with for allowing anything taller than three stories in their ward. Combine this with the new planning guideline height limits, and the construction of tall buildings in Toronto will slow to almost nothing.
 
Mongo:

Densification is a regional planning goal - but since when did more "tall" buildings by default constitute good planning?

AoD
 
Mongo:

Densification is a regional planning goal - but since when did more "tall" buildings by default constitute good planning?

AoD

I don't know, since at no point did I say that it did. "More tall buildings" without more context information is neither good nor bad planning, since it is only part of the overall planning picture.

But I did say that getting rid of the OMB plus adopting the new "planning guidelines" would result in far fewer tall buildings being approved.
 
This is exactly why I am appalled by this idea. Without the OMB, almost all local councillors will agree with their area's NIMBYs, who are vocal enough to turn the next election against a councillor they are angry with for allowing anything taller than three stories in their ward. Combine this with the new planning guideline height limits, and the construction of tall buildings in Toronto will slow to almost nothing.

And if that's the case then those councilors lose out on developers dollars. Remember money talks.

But I did say that getting rid of the OMB plus adopting the new "planning guidelines" would result in far fewer tall buildings being approved.

And what's wrong with that? Not every part of the city needs to have 50 story structures. A city of 5-10 story building can still look and feel great.
 
And what's wrong with that? Not every part of the city needs to have 50 story structures. A city of 5-10 story building can still look and feel great.

Exactly.

Not to mention that the best buildings of the past 5 years have predominantly been shorter, mid-rise buildings in the 10-18s range. Most of Freedville, and the stuff on King east, near Parliament fits this bill.

Frankly, the design of the really tall buildigns has been disappointing. Aura, Trump, 10 York, 21 Harbour are all of a lesser calibre than the best buildings in shorter height ranges.

Finally, even if you're just a height fetishist, the tallest buildings in Toronto really aren't that tall. Despite the fact that we're going through an unprecedented boom, no developer has broken FCP's 35 year hold on the tallest building in Toronto. This is ironic because cities big and small broke height records in the past ten years: Calgary, Vancouver, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, New York, Mobile, Cincinnati. Toronto built hundreds of highrises during this time - more than those cities combined - but still didn't put out a record breaker.
 
Last edited:
^ Wasn't the Empire State Building the tallest in New York for over 40 years?
 
I agree:mad:, i see some people are ecstatic....maybe after its all said and done with this and the tall building study getting revamped, the city can find ways to replace the lost revenues the construction industry generates for Toronto............

You are making nothing but an unfounded assumption. There will continue to be tall buildings in this city. Of course, there will never be enough for you because you tend to obsess about tallness over quality or appropriate situating.

Anyway, this will put more control of city planning into the hands of the city - where it belongs. Developers will have to respect the city plan and zoning exceptions made by the city when planning recognizes a valid reason for such an exception.
 
Of course, there will never be enough for you because you tend to obsess about tallness over quality or appropriate situating.

LOL:D, As opposed to the obsession to shortness?....PLEASE, even if it was a design of excellence you would still be investigating if that extra meter is suitable for the area ....this OMB thing is far from a done deal.

I would hate to have you as my next door neighbour..you'd probably be down at City Hall checking out if the height of my backyard fence meet area codes.:mad:
 
OMB was a great kick in the face to NIMBYs. But I agree that it sometimes hands down decisions we like, other times it doesn't. But it doesn't just pull its decisions out of a hat.

That said, I do think Toronto is a mature enough city to come up with its own Toronto-centric solution.
 
The next question is: will the province agree to the request from the city? Anybody have an opinion about that?
 
we definitely need the OMB, imo......unfortunately, 'citizens' in a democracy tend to think of their own selfish agenda first, instead of the greater good in city building, and it's always been that way - hence the constant predictable whining about shadowing, traffic, too many people, etc....and elected politicians want to stay elected, so they obey the wishes of their constituents, no matter how narrow minded and self serving they may be...

The OMB provides a means to bypass these NIMBY inclinations.

It's an imperfect system, but it works..
 
Last edited:
How much does it cost the province to run the OMB? Does the OMB actually bring in any profit for the province?
I see absolutely no need in such an organization. It's time has past and it's best to move on without it.
If it's actually costing money to run the OMB then the best thing would be to completely eliminate it from the province. And..........here's an out of the box thought.............allow the city and the people who live there to decide on city building.
 

Back
Top