[Conrad Black]

I'd wait to see what the area looks like once its fully built out to say its isolated from the outside world. Once access to Bathurst and to Lakeshore is completed I think the area will completely improve. Even people heading back and forth from the old Molson property to the new LCBO will make a big difference.

 

[grey]

I posted the same picture in the Parade Thread.

Is the city buying up all that parkland? If not, I doubt it'd be a third as big.

The new Toronto planning bureaucracy can't wait to bend over without a bottle of lube.

 

[interchange42]

The size of the park is set - it's not changing - it was negotiated by the City when Concord worked out their master plan.

That said, some of what's pictured in that sales rendering near the east end of the park is slated for community facilities.

Thanks for being so crude regarding the planning department.

42

 

[grey]

The size of the park is set - it's not changing - it was negotiated by the City when Concord worked out their master plan.

That said, some of what's pictured in that sales rendering near the east end of the park is slated for community facilities.

Thanks for being so crude regarding the planning department.

42

I'm pretty sure master plans aren't legally binding in any way whatsoever.

This is the same planning department that ran some of my friends out for not taking part in activities that demonstarted a clear conflict of interest with private developers on the part of senior planners and managers and looks down upon people reading current planning material.

It was bad, man - Toronto planners have gone dooooownhill - or returned to their normal state - with bedford and his rhetoric leavning.

 

[interchange42]

I know the words you used in your reply were English - I do recognize them individually - but...

What are you talking about?

If you want to level some accusations at the planning department then please present an argument in place of rambling, unintelligible, unsubstantiated claims.

42

 

[Tuscani01]

I'm pretty sure master plans aren't legally binding in any way whatsoever.

This is the same planning department that ran some of my friends out for not taking part in activities that demonstarted a clear conflict of interest with private developers on the part of senior planners and managers and looks down upon people reading current planning material.

It was bad, man - Toronto planners have gone dooooownhill - or returned to their normal state - with bedford and his rhetoric leavning.

A master plan is a legal document, so they are legally binding. Whether or not Concord's master plan for Cityplace is part of the City's official plan is another issue. If the city included it, then the park is going to be built as is.

looks down upon people reading current planning material.

What? I have had no problems finding planning materials from the planning department. In fact, I have found the planning department to be extremely helpful.

 

[grey]

42, I'm getting the impression that you work at city hall. If that's the case, please don't take anything I say as a personal attack (I really enjoy your posts, and if this is the case, I'm sure you would know as well as anybody poor examples of practice and don't need me to point them out).

It's one big reacharound since that Ryerson grad took over as chief planner that Ryerson and OPPI/CIP is so proud about. *sigh*

Offhand (and off topic, my apologies), distillery comes to mind where the developers changed the massing from an appropriate point tower to something of lesser height but more bulk.

*sigh*

Granted, one could say that's the developers fault and not the city's because the density remained in place - which is my point precisely. Things get approved in master plans and rendering, but that's it. How about the fiasco at the OMB with the city and Queen West? City folded faster than a deck of cards while the community groups actually were about to get the decision in their favour at the OMB. City did nothing to help out. I forget the details, but definite black-eye. But again, the city won't consider it one and it was probably 'out of their control', which is just an example of the city staff's lack of commitment and courage.

Edit: I think this discussion would be more appropriate in Toronto Issues. Out of general curiosity, 42, can I ask you what are some good examples of city-staff led planning initiatives since the new guy came in?

Might be an interesting thread to start; we could put together a list of examples of bad / poor CITY-staff led planning initatives and how long it took to realise them, who was involved in each.

Might be a neat way to map everything on the interweb, too.

 

[allabootmatt]

I hate to say it but I do agree somewhat with Vultur's assessment. While we should absolutely reserve judgement on Cityplace until the remainder--ie, west of Spadina--is built out, what I've seen so far has been extremely unimpressive. Spadina just feels so unbelievably cold in the Cityplace area, even on a hot day--it doesn't help that the trees in front of HVE are already dead after what, a year? There are no setbacks, the landscaping is totally cheap, as are many of the ground-level materials, and on and on.

Though I wouldn't be surprised if the buildings on Front end up being relatively desirable, since at least they are more hooked into the city.

Again, I want to wait to see what emerges west of Spadina. But judging by what's been built already--which is a lot--it seems that the City failed to properly hold Concord's feet to the fire on doing a high-quality job. Their equivalent project in Vancouver was *much* better executed, so we know they are capable of it, but why spend that money if you don't have to, right?

 

[vultur]

To an extent I can appreciate what's going on east of spadina, though personally the SkyDome is a monolithic eyesore and symbolic of 80s excess.

However, the western lands are, in my opinion, just not suited for highly functional high density apartment living. Where is it inscribed that every patch of land in this quadrant must be conducive to condo development? Without the city grid, this project really starts to resemble a post-war ghetto community. Granted, with the potential for end-user guidance there is a stronger likelihood that it won't fall into disrepair, but to believe that the area can realistically thrive and develop into a genuine neighborhood is pure folly.

My vote would have been for a NASCAR track. The area most definitely lends itself to that sort of activity. If it's too small to accommodate, then how about a giant waterpark? Something sports related would have been ideal.

 

[interchange42]

42, I'm getting the impression that you work at city hall. If that's the case, please don't take anything I say as a personal attack (I really enjoy your posts, and if this is the case, I'm sure you would know as well as anybody poor examples of practice and don't need me to point them out).

It's one big reacharound since that Ryerson grad took over as chief planner that Ryerson and OPPI/CIP is so proud about. *sigh*

Offhand (and off topic, my apologies), distillery comes to mind where the developers changed the massing from an appropriate point tower to something of lesser height but more bulk.

*sigh*

Granted, one could say that's the developers fault and not the city's because the density remained in place - which is my point precisely. Things get approved in master plans and rendering, but that's it. How about the fiasco at the OMB with the city and Queen West? City folded faster than a deck of cards while the community groups actually were about to get the decision in their favour at the OMB. City did nothing to help out. I forget the details, but definite black-eye. But again, the city won't consider it one and it was probably 'out of their control', which is just an example of the city staff's lack of commitment and courage.

Edit: I think this discussion would be more appropriate in Toronto Issues. Out of general curiosity, 42, can I ask you what are some good examples of city-staff led planning initiatives since the new guy came in?

Might be an interesting thread to start; we could put together a list of examples of bad / poor CITY-staff led planning initatives and how long it took to realise them, who was involved in each.

Might be a neat way to map everything on the interweb, too.

Hi Grey,

I don't work for the city - I'm in the private realm - so I'm not taking your claims as a personal attack. I'm also not saying that you've made false claims, but that you have made unsubstantiated ones by not citing any specifics.

When I read posts on this forum claiming that someone or some department isn't doing their job properly, I want to see a concrete example of what the complaint stems from. Without a solid argument to back up an accusation, I am normally left with the impression that the post is mere sour grapes, especially if my own experience in the area concerned has left me feeling differently. If it's a legitimate complaint, I want enough details to either debate it or decide if I agree.

In this case, my familiarity with the recent day-to-day of Toronto's planning department may not be as great as yours, but I do know that the department is far too small for the amount of work that is assigned it, and that little of the work that is done there now is proactive, most of it being reactive. I am not aware of how the department's culture has changed since the departure of Paul Bedford either. If you have illuminating stories to tell, I would be happy to read them, but you're right - that would make more sense in the Toronto Issues subforum, where you'd be more than welcome to start a thread!

42

 

[syn]

To an extent I can appreciate what's going on east of spadina, though personally the SkyDome is a monolithic eyesore and symbolic of 80s excess.

However, the western lands are, in my opinion, just not suited for highly functional high density apartment living. Where is it inscribed that every patch of land in this quadrant must be conducive to condo development? Without the city grid, this project really starts to resemble a post-war ghetto community. Granted, with the potential for end-user guidance there is a stronger likelihood that it won't fall into disrepair, but to believe that the area can realistically thrive and develop into a genuine neighborhood is pure folly.

My vote would have been for a NASCAR track. The area most definitely lends itself to that sort of activity. If it's too small to accommodate, then how about a giant waterpark? Something sports related would have been ideal.

As far as I know, the west side of Cityplace was re-worked a year or two ago. It's going to be much better than the west side and follow a grid pattern.

 

[casaguy]

It's going to be much better.

"Much better."

Glad the bar is raised so high for this important piece of land.

It's almost like saying, "Well, it could be worse."

 

[Dane]

Pictures from today's outdoor adventures,

September 20 2007

From some weird location...

From afar....

and from the street.....

and a nice view of some tall towers to top it all off.

 

[alklay]

I have to say that you have taken some nice pics (and generously put them in the appropriate threads). thanks.

 

[adma]

My vote would have been for a NASCAR track. The area most definitely lends itself to that sort of activity. If it's too small to accommodate, then how about a giant waterpark? Something sports related would have been ideal.

I smell sarcasm.