News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

I'll be probably purchasing a unit for investment at Aquaview. I would pass on Idea as it's just too far away from the Go Train station. On a summers day, that's fine, but might be a bit of a problem in winter.

All high-rise units in the area are condos, not rentals.
 
Rendering attached! :D
 

Attachments

  • idea3.jpg
    idea3.jpg
    92 KB · Views: 264
Lakeview condo a bad IDEA, residents say

Photo by Michael Ivanin
Berardo Groziani of G+C Architects shows an artist's drawing of a proposed 21-storey condo in Lakeview during last night's public hearing. EMAIL PRINT

Bookmark/Search this post with:

By: John Stewart

October 16, 2007 - The proponents of a 21-storey condominium tower that would go on a gas station lot in Lakeview are calling their project "The Idea Condo."

Last night, about 200 Lakeview residents told city councillors that they think it is a really bad idea.

The council chambers at the Mississauga Civic Centre were mostly full as a parade of residents spoke at a public meeting concerning an application by Queenscorp.

Queenscorp want to build a 260-unit, 21-storey building at the northeast corner of Lakeshore Rd. E. and Deta Rd. The application also includes six back-to-back row units.

Jim Tovey of the Lakeview Ratepayers’ Association was one of several residents who said the proposal is entirely inappropriate for the surrounding community.

“It would create a wall against the waterfront, putting a tower just four to six feet from the sidewalk,” Tovey told The News before the meeting.

The proposed densities are far more appropriate to the city centre than to the predominantly single-family Lakeview neighbourhood, ratepayers indicated. They also questioned whether surrounding streets can handle the increased traffic.

Ward 1 Councillor Carmen Corbasson, who represents the area, has already said she opposes the project. Three hundred residents earlier signed a petition of opposition.

The developer has already appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board for an early decision on the project.

Planning staff will take the comments made at last night’s meeting into account before returning to planning committee with a recommendation on whether or not the City should approve the condominium.
 
Wow. I wonder what they're allowed to build here as of right?

There should be an Ontario law stipulating that ads for new condos indicate whether or not the project actually has the necessary approvals to be built yet. Why should the OMB give this developer a fast ride through the system just because they've started selling units already? I am not against this building per se, but I am against the developer trying to subvert the planning process.

42
 
Yeah, there's already towers-in-the-park all around the site, so the density/height isn't really out of place here. I don't mind the renders, nothing spectacular at all, but not offensive either.

But I agree, the developer trying to get around the planning process leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I agree as well that the developer has to be upfront about planning approvals and risks involved to buyers.

I also think the early appeal to OMB by developers has to be curtailed - either by extending the time limit (to 10 or 12 from 6 months), or restricting its usage.
 
interchange42 said:
Why should the OMB give this developer a fast ride through the system just because they've started selling units already?
Click to expand...

The OMB doesn't take the status of sales into consideration when making a decision.... whether the building is sold out or not yet on the market has no bearing whatsoever on a board members decision. Decisions are made based on planning evidence presented which has nothing to do with sales and marketing.

SeanTrans said:
But I agree, the developer trying to get around the planning process leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I agree as well that the developer has to be upfront about planning approvals and risks involved to buyers.

I also think the early appeal to OMB by developers has to be curtailed - either by extending the time limit (to 10 or 12 from 6 months), or restricting its usage.
Click to expand...

The developer isn't try to get around the planning process (they are clearly following the planning act in this case)... if municipalities drag out or can't come to a decision in a timely manner a proponent should not have to sit in limbo forever. That would provide a far too easy way for municipal politicians to avoid having to make controversial decisions. The right of appeal to the OMB places tension in the system. Otherwise anything controversial would be shoved off into a black hole.

With respect to 'early appeals' to the OMB. The Strong Communities Act that was passed just a couple of years ago doubled the appeal time lines from 90 to 180 days. That is a long time - also most developers won't exercise their appeal right on day 181 if negotiations are going well or if they can see progress in the application moving its way through the system. However if the application is held up by politicians or bureacracy and it is evident that no decision will be forthcoming for a long time, then that right of appeal is often exercised, as it should be.
 
Mike in TO said:
The OMB doesn't take the status of sales into consideration when making a decision.... whether the building is sold out or not yet on the market has no bearing whatsoever on a board members decision. Decisions are made based on planning evidence presented which has nothing to do with sales and marketing.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that the OMB is doing that. The lack of a definition in the article as to what an early decision by the OMB is is partly to blame. It sounded to me that the developer was trying to rush the process - and I assumed that meant they would try to use sales as an excuse, whether or not the OMB might buy that.

I stick by what I am saying regarding sales though - that developers should be compelled by law to disclose in adverts what stage in the approvals process the building has attained.

Thanks for the clarification Mike - you are the most knowledgeable person on this forum in these matters.

42
 
interchange42 said:
I'm not saying that the OMB is doing that. The lack of a definition in the article as to what an early decision by the OMB is is partly to blame. It sounded to me that the developer was trying to rush the process - and I assumed that meant they would try to use sales as an excuse, whether or not the OMB might buy that.

I stick by what I am saying regarding sales though - that developers should be compelled by law to disclose in adverts what stage in the approvals process the building has attained.

Thanks for the clarification Mike - you are the most knowledgeable person on this forum in these matters.
Click to expand...

No problem 42, A purchaser should be able to find out the status of the project they are interested in with a little research... although I agree that greater disclosure would be helpful to all parties and help to potentially avoid messes like what occured at Mode by Cresford. The best piece of advice for anyone looking at buying a condo is to do your homework. Sales staff (who don't know anything beyond what they are told - they are not directly employed by the builder and frequently move from site to site) and glossy marketing packages should not be the only things you rely on when making what for many people is the largest investment of their life.
 
Since Queenscorp cut the ground retail in the latest revision I'd be happy to see this baby get knocked down to a smaller midrise.

The one difference between the towers in the park that are already there, and this one is that this one would actually border right onto the low rise property line where as, out of the current towers already there, the closest one is 50m away from a house.

My one current beef with the developer is how they're already making it sound like the new park on the old Arsenal lands is already open while it's still fenced off and still under phoytoremediation and will likely be years until it opens to the public. I realize it's the buyer should do their homework, but oh man, it's a complete and utter lie to the public.
 
Jarrek said:
“It would create a wall against the waterfront, putting a tower just four to six feet from the sidewalk,†Tovey told The News before the meeting.
Click to expand...


Oh no! Wouldn't want to have it only 4-6 feet from the sidewalk. In Mississauga it needs to be at LEAST 20 feet! :rolleyes:

I do understand that there should be a step-up though. But building right up to the sidewalk is part of what makes a city a proper city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top