Forgotten said:
That's not the point. Even if we accept the idea WAM wasn't actually behind it, do we really think numbered Ontario corporation 348213481 would have been able to get the value that it did out of the property had those illegal acts not occurred? Of course not.

That is why I suggested changing the law to ban any new permits from being granted to current and future owners in perpetuity should there be illegal actions on heritage properties such as the ones that happened at 245 Queen Street East. If we're serious about heritage protection the ROI action:reward matrix needs to be changed. I could even be convinced to grant powers of expropriation in cases of deliberate neglect.
Click to expand...

We should be fining the numbered company. I fear your solutions punish the public realm more than they punish the guilty party. Banning new permits in perpetuity for the site? The neighbourhood would have to live with a vacant lot, and all that entails, literally forever. As for expropriation, municipalities can already expropriate whether there is deliberate neglect or not, as long as there is a public purpose. The issue isn't one of powers, but rather one of not having the funds to buy every heritage building that might be at risk.
 
Forgotten said:
That's not the point. Even if we accept the idea WAM wasn't actually behind it, do we really think numbered Ontario corporation 348213481 would have been able to get the value that it did out of the property had those illegal acts not occurred? Of course not.

That is why I suggested changing the law to ban any new permits from being granted to current and future owners in perpetuity should there be illegal actions on heritage properties such as the ones that happened at 245 Queen Street East. If we're serious about heritage protection the ROI action:reward matrix needs to be changed. I could even be convinced to grant powers of expropriation in cases of deliberate neglect.

The Mizrahi situation is not remotely similar. He applied for and received the proper permits from the authorities at the City of Toronto. It was 100% legal and moral within the bounds of the law.
Click to expand...


NO! Mizrahi did not have all the proper permits to do what he did. He had every right to destroy the facade but had absolutely no right to block of the sidewalk. What he did was not legal and put pedestrians in a precarious position.

I wholeheartedly disagree that future owners should suffer from previous owner transgressions. They should not be blamed for the ineptitude of the city not seeking damages from illegal actions that destroy heritage buildings. I repeat, once again, our current planning policies do nothing to preserve these buildings from redevelopment. We will continue to see shady activities and facadism until we follow examples of other cities which preserves these buildings by not allowing any additional density to be built on site and create a market for unused densities to be sold.
 
The preliminary Report is coming to TEYCC in May.

Toronto and East York Community Council consideration on May 10, 2016
TE16.38

Ward:28

Preliminary Report - 245-285 Queen Street East, 8-12 Brigden Place, 78-106 Ontario Street, and 348-412 Richmond Street East - Official Plan and Zoning Amendment Application

See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.TE16.38
 
In terms of how the proposal relates to its surrounding local context, yes, as well as to how new construction on the site meshes with the heritage components that will be retained.

42
 
Shame, shame, shame on any Torontonian who was involved in encouraging this proposal. We should all know better than this. We are NOT New York City. We don't build this kind of density in this kind of location. This is why, I think, we should only allow proposals from local developers. Otherwise we get these outsiders coming in with absolutely no regard for how jammed up our sidewalks get. They don't think for a second about the person who might have to wait an extra two minutes to order food at the local pizza parlour because of the hordes invading THEIR area. And what about the people who would inevitably have to walk between those buildings who may suffer from claustrophobia? Callous and extreme disregard for mental health that we should never countenance for a second.

Now, there is a tiny chance I may be able to be persuaded otherwise, but my initial reaction is three thunderous "hip, hip hoorays" for the DRP. How much less Good would Toronto be with out you looking out for us as you do?
 
The DRP hit the nail on the head calling this "essentially a shopping mall". The main problem with this proposal wasn't the height, but rather the way it (didn't) integrate with the surrounding urban fabric and existing heritage.
 
Uptowner said:
Shame, shame, shame on any Torontonian who was involved in encouraging this proposal. We should all know better than this. We are NOT New York City. We don't build this kind of density in this kind of location. This is why, I think, we should only allow proposals from local developers. Otherwise we get these outsiders coming in with absolutely no regard for how jammed up our sidewalks get. They don't think for a second about the person who might have to wait an extra two minutes to order food at the local pizza parlour because of the hordes invading THEIR area. And what about the people who would inevitably have to walk between those buildings who may suffer from claustrophobia? Callous and extreme disregard for mental health that we should never countenance for a second.

Now, there is a tiny chance I may be able to be persuaded otherwise, but my initial reaction is three thunderous "hip, hip hoorays" for the DRP. How much less Good would Toronto be with out you looking out for us as you do?
Click to expand...


Not sure what New York City has to do with anything.

A. We are, on average, building to a much greater density than New York. Height there is achieved through unused density from heritage properties (80% of Manhattan urban form is 80 plus years old) , skinny towers with low lot coverage and, very high ceiling heights.
B. WAM is from Edmonton.

So, quit your whining and read a book on planning.
 
I'm generally a strong proponent of development that is appropriately scaled for a site, but to be honest, I think the area immediately surrounding this particular site could use a strong jolt in the direction of vibrancy and liveliness. I also think there are some nice elements depicted for the public realm (though agree that they could use some refinements).

This'll most likely be scaled back in one way or another, but I'm excited to see this plot redeveloped. The massing on the western portion of the site, in particular, needs some work, but I hope the overall reductions don't net us with a generally more squat development and/or towers that are more devoid of intrigue (i.e. I hope the angled boxes don't find themselves on the chopping block).
 
Definitely not a fan of the towers' massing, their heights and, the repetitive design. The podium is very much a product of the towers above; needlessly large and repetitive. Looks like it belongs in Brentwood, Burnaby. The site is surrounded by recent condo developments. None are particularly noteworthy, lack retail presence but, at least, have a suitable form for this neighbourhood. I don't see a need to settle for this. I fear the precedence set by this on the neighbourhood as well. Many would disagree but, 500 foot towers do not need to plopped down everywhere.
 
maestro said:
Not sure what New York City has to do with anything.

A. We are, on average, building to a much greater density than New York. Height there is achieved through unused density from heritage properties (80% of Manhattan urban form is 80 plus years old) , skinny towers with low lot coverage and, very high ceiling heights.
B. WAM is from Edmonton.

So, quit your whining and read a book on planning.
Click to expand...

I haven't posted much on this site but a good proportion of my contributions have been in favour of maximizing density. If I was still hanging out on college campuses these days I would probably describe myself as having been triggered by "Too Big!..." in the title of the article on this topic. That is what elicited my response.

I was trying to be transparently sarcastic, but I know things can be a bit subtle when someone on the go is rushing through the latest posts as part of their hurried schedule. Anyway, I was very much disappointed by the opinion that there was too much density for this plot. I want more, more and then some more density, please. With the way these reports come out some of these developers must feel like Oliver Twist when asking for a supplement to their meager ration of height and units. How badly will they get chewed out?

Anyway, the two minutes for pizza, claustrophobia and capitalizing "Good" (as in "Toronto the Good") was supposed to tip people off. I wasn't trying to trick anyone into taking it seriously. I was too depressed and despondent from reading the article to be that devious. I have long said that we need to be up around, at a bare minimum, 25 000 per square kilometer in the greater downtown area.

I don't have much to say I haven't said in other threads, but I do wish people would stop trying to limit density downtown. If you like low density neighbourhoods there are many cheaper, less dense places for you to go without leaving the city. All I want is one tiny section of the city that isn't stunted by narcissistic bureaucrats. Whenever I suggest this as a possible fate for our city, though, people seem to get vociferously indignant. Come to think of it, that is probably why I chose sarcasm.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top