Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,113
Reaction score
29,833
For those following along.............this is the LPAT/OLT case reference:

1623179294860.png


And the time/date of the 1st Case Management Conference:

1623179369427.png
 

JT20

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 19, 2019
Messages
20
Reaction score
30
right beside 2 subway stations, across from a 20+ tower, a nice upscale looking building, having to take on heritage restoration, all part of a 13 storey proposal which they came down from 15 stories, and Layton is saying "they're not budging". Also what is he talking about with "small site", they're transitioning to townhomes on the east pretty nicely imo.

this is being published in Post City, it's for the neighbourhood to read. i'm sorry but this is just publicity for Layton to say that he's standing up against the big(midrise) bad developer so he gets reelected.

i hope it gets rejected at LPAT and another developer picks it up builds a 21 storey glass tower like the one across the street by Tricon, then they would wish they gave these guys their 13.
 

daniel_kryz

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
258
Reaction score
346
right beside 2 subway stations, across from a 20+ tower, a nice upscale looking building, having to take on heritage restoration, all part of a 13 storey proposal which they came down from 15 stories, and Layton is saying "they're not budging". Also what is he talking about with "small site",

this is being published in Post City, it's for the neighbourhood to read. i'm sorry but this is just publicity for Layton to say that he's standing up against the big(midrise) bad developer so he gets reelected.

i hope it gets rejected at LPAT and another developer picks it up builds a 21 storey glass tower like the one across the street by Tricon, then they would wish they gave these guys their 13.
Why be so vengeful? I don't think it would teach anyone a lesson, it would just ruin the neighbourhood forever. It's very clear that this site is appropriate for mid-rise densities, while Scrivener Square is appropriate for tall buildings due to its large area and reasonable distance from tiny homes.
 

emphur

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
161
Reaction score
1,710
City:
Toronto
Something to look forward to since LPAT may take a while, It looks as if we'll still be getting something nice in the interm.

Currently the building is being gutted to create two new storefronts according to permits filed recently. This work will include restoration of the façade (including removing the random sections added by staples), new windows and i'd imagine removal of the paint aswell.

So glad this won't be sitting empty.

1625043190156.png
1625043262356.png


I haven't been by in a bit but I noticed work going on here recently: (Photo Source)

1625043012928.png
 

ookpik

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
95
It makes much more sense if you read in the context of the whole post...
I read the whole post. None of a 13, 15 or 21 storey building would “ruin the neighbourhood forever” lmao. I have no patience or respect for the notion that we must forever kowtow to rich people and their houses, entrenching their wealth and “protecting” them from the horrors of shadow, 1% reduced sky view, more people on the sidewalk, etc. I just don’t care and I think it’s inequitable the way the OP builds a policy fortress around Neighbourhoods. If you live a stone’s throw from Yonge St and multiple subway stations, parks and schools, retail and offices, in a $2, $3, $4, $5+-million house, you should have some responsibility and tolerance for growth along with the privilege of living there. A well-designed tall building does not “ruin” a neighbourhood and I will not stand for this drivel!!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

thecharioteer

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
3,466
Reaction score
2,155
One has to look at the concept of "protecting" neighbourhoods in the historical planning context of the 1970's. At that time, entire neighbourhoods such as North St. Jamestown and Quebec/Gothic in High Park were being razed for high-rise development, following the 1960's pattern of development in areas like Yonge/Eglinton and Yonge/St. Clair. The "reform" council of the early 70's, made up of members such as David Crombie, John Sewell and Karl Jaffary, were elected to do things differently and the new Central Area Plan was introduced by the planners with the intent of protecting these neighbourhoods under threat of wholesale urban renewal. All subsequent Official Plans since that time have built on these concepts, however the concept of "protection" morphed from preventing the whole-sale demolition of downtown low-rise neighbourhoods to minimizing impact on flanking streets by way of height limits, angular planes and setbacks. What we have now in the OP and Tall Building Guidelines is (for the most part) overkill, and we've seen these conflicts arise time and time again because of how the laudable intentions of the planners in the 1970's have become misused to prevent reasonable developments near or within the "Neighbourhoods"
 

ookpik

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 14, 2021
Messages
26
Reaction score
95
One has to look at the concept of "protecting" neighbourhoods in the historical planning context of the 1970's. At that time, entire neighbourhoods such as North St. Jamestown and Quebec/Gothic in High Park were being razed for high-rise development, following the 1960's pattern of development in areas like Yonge/Eglinton and Yonge/St. Clair. The "reform" council of the early 70's, made up of members such as David Crombie, John Sewell and Karl Jaffary, were elected to do things differently and the new Central Area Plan was introduced by the planners with the intent of protecting these neighbourhoods under threat of wholesale urban renewal. All subsequent Official Plans since that time have built on these concepts, however the concept of "protection" morphed from preventing the whole-sale demolition of downtown low-rise neighbourhoods to minimizing impact on flanking streets by way of height limits, angular planes and setbacks. What we have now in the OP and Tall Building Guidelines is (for the most part) overkill, and we've seen these conflicts arise time and time again because of how the laudable intentions of the planners in the 1970's have become misused to prevent reasonable developments near or within the "Neighbourhoods"
Never heard this historical narrative before. Thx for sharing.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
2,599
Reaction score
3,013
I read the whole post. None of a 13, 15 or 21 storey building would “ruin the neighbourhood forever” lmao. I have no patience or respect for the notion that we must forever kowtow to rich people and their houses, entrenching their wealth and “protecting” them from the horrors of shadow, 1% reduced sky view, more people on the sidewalk, etc. I just don’t care and I think it’s inequitable the way the OP builds a policy fortress around Neighbourhoods. If you live a stone’s throw from Yonge St and multiple subway stations, parks and schools, retail and offices, in a $2, $3, $4, $5+-million house, you should have some responsibility and tolerance for growth along with the privilege of living there. A well-designed tall building does not “ruin” a neighbourhood and I will not stand for this drivel!!
To be clear, I didn't say I agreed with it. I would have just quoted the whole post while emphasizing that one point instead. It adds context to the debate and dissing, IMO.
 

Top