jmi22 said:
by that same logic, the first tower in Humber Bay Shores should have never been built seeing as there was not precedent for it. Maybe the first high rises built on Yonge in the early 20th century should never have been built seeing as they 'were without precedent'? Perhaps Yonge and Sheppard should have also been preserved as farmland, seeing as that the 'character' of the neighborhood up until 40 years ago, This nonsensical planning methodology is what results in local control wholly being eliminated as we saw recently with the MZO on lakeview in Mississauga allowing for twice the density Crombie and the rest of Mississauga's nimby council wanted to allow.
Click to expand...
And by the logic you're going by (ie: building very large high-rises where there are none whatsoever irrespective to existing neighborhoods/infrastructure, we'd have high-rises builds on Roncesvalles, Pearson Airport, and Rouge Park). You cant go a paint all of Toronto with the same brush just because there is a need for housing.

Although that's something that the current provincial government would love everyone to think, and if that were really the case then perhaps we can get some nice 150m+ tall towers right by Doug Ford's neighborhood around Scarlett Road and Eglinton. That's right by an MTSA, so by his logic we can jam all the density in the world around places like that especially since TRCA, municipal planning rules, heritage conservation, etc. virtually means nothing to him.
 
Amare said:
And by the logic you're going by (ie: building very large high-rises where there are none whatsoever irrespective to existing neighborhoods/infrastructure, we'd have high-rises builds on Roncesvalles, Pearson Airport, and Rouge Park). You cant go a paint all of Toronto with the same brush just because there is a need for housing.

Although that's something that the current provincial government would love everyone to think, and if that were really the case then perhaps we can get some nice 150m+ tall towers right by Doug Ford's neighborhood around Scarlett Road and Eglinton. That's right by an MTSA, so by his logic we can jam all the density in the world around places like that especially since TRCA, municipal planning rules, heritage conservation, etc. virtually means nothing to him.
Click to expand...
Ronces has had crossways, two of the tallest towers in the area, at the top of it for 50 years and chaos has not yet consumed the area. And yes, building more housing in the form of high rises surrounding Roncesvalles would be good, seeing as many wish to live in the neighborhood and it is a transit hub. Pearson clearly cannot have high-rises near it, and west rouge is essentially a transit dessert so no high density development makes sense there.

There is not simply a "need for housing" there is a crushing affordability crisis that has driven tens of thousands of people onto the street, and countless more into squalid conditions. Like it or not, when this is occurring nobody has time for precious neighborhood characteristics (even ignoring that terms very racist connotations) when they are paying $2500 for half a basement. These towers will go up city wide, hopefully including Fords neighborhood, and people will be happy for the influx of new supply.
 
There's no racist connotations anywhere.

The problem was caused by the Feds pumping too much money and people into the system. They did this because their bankster and developer pals got too greedy.

Anything else is a red herring.
 
jmi22 said:
There is not simply a "need for housing" there is a crushing affordability crisis that has driven tens of thousands of people onto the street, and countless more into squalid conditions. Like it or not, when this is occurring nobody has time for precious neighborhood characteristics (even ignoring that terms very racist connotations) when they are paying $2500 for half a basement. These towers will go up city wide, hopefully including Fords neighborhood, and people will be happy for the influx of new supply.
Click to expand...
And who do you think has exasperated the affordability crisis?

You can create all the supply in the world but if you have a government who could not care less about keeping things affordable, nothing will change even if you go and raze single lot homes for skyhigh condos.
 
Undead said:
There's no racist connotations anywhere.

The problem was caused by the Feds pumping too much money and people into the system. They did this because their bankster and developer pals got too greedy.

Anything else is a red herring.
Click to expand...
'Neighborhood characteristics' is such a charged term that it is specifically taught about within university planning history courses. And this supposed overload of people has been the only thing maintaining the Canadian high quality of life as the birth rates of existing citizens declines rapidly. Never mind the fact that Canada has always been a nation based around high levels of immigration. Cities and regions refusing to build new housing does not mean that immigration is a problem.
 
Amare said:
And who do you think has exasperated the affordability crisis?

You can create all the supply in the world but if you have a government who could not care less about keeping things affordable, nothing will change even if you go and raze single lot homes for skyhigh condos.
Click to expand...
The affordability crisis has been created by decades of local and provincial zoning prohibiting the construction of anything other that single family homes. This has been perpetuated by politicians and local residents associations. Are you seriously proposing that the companies building thousands of new units yearly are creating a housing shortage?
 
jmi22 said:
Are you seriously proposing that the companies building thousands of new units yearly are creating a housing shortage?
Click to expand...
No what i'm stating is that this proposal is not suited for the neighborhood as currently proposed.
 
This one was appealed by the Applicant in February '23 to the OLT.

It is the subject of an Appeals Report recommending staff attend the OLT in opposition to this proposal.


From the above:

1694008147018.png

***

1694008224957.png


***

1694008267996.png

1694008315982.png

1694008420066.png


Comments: Yup, saw this coming. I don't like the applicant's chances here, the City's case is pretty strong that this proposal is not primetime-ready.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
This one was appealed by the Applicant in February '23 to the OLT.

It is the subject of an Appeals Report recommending staff attend the OLT in opposition to this proposal.


From the above:

View attachment 504569
***

View attachment 504570

***

View attachment 504571
View attachment 504572
View attachment 504573

Comments: Yup, saw this coming. I don't like the applicant's chances here, the City's case is pretty strong that this is proposal is not primetime-ready.
Click to expand...
Very silly objections, I think staff are in denial of the inevitable growth along lake shore that they allowed to begin with the redevelopment of of Humber Bay Shores. As someone who lives in the area, this chunk of ugly buildings with surface parking fronting right onto lake shore would not be missed. Higher density right next to a very pedestrian accessible grocer and beautiful trail network makes sense
 
jmi22 said:
Very silly objections.
Click to expand...

The objections are not silly, and its exceedingly disrespectful to staff for you to say so. As you don't address any of what I posted, let alone the things I omitted, you give the impression of having come to a conclusion w/o reading the evidence.

jmi22 said:
I think staff are in denial of the inevitable growth along lake shore that they allowed to begin with the redevelopment of of Humber Bay Shores.
Click to expand...

The Secondary Plan specifically allows heights up to 25s in this area, how is that denial of growth? What the City is saying is not that they want to keep the status quo, but rather than the redevelopment here requires additional consolidation of neighbours in order to deliver proper supporting infrastructure, reasonably massed podiums and hospitable environments.

This proposal is offensive and absurd as constituted and it's going nowhere, as it should.

jmi22 said:
As someone who lives in the area, this chunk of ugly buildings with surface parking fronting right onto lake shore would not be missed. Higher density right next to a very pedestrian accessible grocer and beautiful trail network makes sense
Click to expand...

Right, and the City is pro density here, and in favour of getting rid of the existing buildings, for you to imply otherwise is disingenuous. It's all there in print for you.
 
Seeing some fresh lobbying on this one...........

I thought to check in on its status.......

OLT Merit hearing is scheduled for July 8th, 2024.

I will be looking to see if this one appears on the agenda for next week's Council meeting as a settlement offer, as this will be the last chance to do so before the hearing.
 
Merit Hearing that was scheduled for July was adjourned.

New one scheduled for October 7th, 2024.

No sign of a Settlement Offer at the September meeting of EYCC, so we're either looking at another adjournment of this time, the real hearing happens.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top