@lemon2

All the planning documents for a proposal can be found in the AIC.

A link to the relevant files is almost always in the UT project thread, typically, but not always the first post.

In this case, I will bring it forward:

www.toronto.ca

Application Details

www.toronto.ca www.toronto.ca

When you follow that link, you can look at different files, in this case, you can examine the Shadow Studies, and the Traffic Impact Studies to on page 3, and see what you think of the impacts, so that you make credible
arguments if you think they aren't that bad, or how they might be addressed.

I can try to have a look at these when I get a chance and comment if that's helpful.
 
lemon2 said:
- What are people's thoughts on Gord Perks? He's only been my councillor for a year, and I had a positive impression based on his background and cycling advocacy, but I was pretty disappointed by his open hostility yesterday.
Click to expand...
Perks talks the talk, but follows essentially none of it up. You would think that with this supposed super progressive cycling advocate in office for 18 years in the west end there would be bike lanes of any significant length on Queen, Dundas West or any other street* in his ward that was not a city wide project (ie Bloor). But no, and anyone who does not do something after 18 years has no interest in accomplishing whatever that goal may be. In my mind he is similar to Paula Fletcher over on the Danforth who would at first appear to be some vanguard of radical change but at the end of the day, makes decisions that would not be odd coming out of Stephen Holydays mouth.

P.S.* The "bike lanes" on Ronces do not count and are arguably more dangerous than just allowing cyclists to remain in the center lane instead of swerving back and forth through traffic.
 
lemon2 said:
I asked for a summary, but they basically said "you can read that when I submit the report in a few weeks, it's too early to share". Gord commented that it was highly unusual for city staff to announce their opposition this early, though I don't know whether that's actually true.

In general, though, Victoria seemed receptive to the NIMBYist opinions around the impact it'll have on the laneway, traffic, etc. She was definitely much more neutral (or at least trying to stay credibly neutral) than Gord, who was straight-up ripping into the developers and the project.
Click to expand...
Gord is a good guy, but throughout his Councillor career, his kryptonite has consistently been 'development'. He was, for example, one of the champions against Giraffe over a decade ago (hilariously anachronistic in the current context) and was happy to dance on TAS' grave when it was rejected at OLT. He's also one that's pushed for lower density at the Parkdale Hub down on Queen.

I'll be clear: I like Gord a lot. His politics largely mirror mine and I think he's genuinely a good person who wants the best for the City, but unfortunately it doesn't always come out that way, especially when it comes to taller buildings close to transit.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Gord is a good guy, but throughout his Councillor career, his kryptonite has consistently been 'development'. He was, for example, one of the champions against Giraffe over a decade ago (hilariously anachronistic in the current context) and was happy to dance on TAS' grave when it was rejected at OLT. He's also one that's pushed for lower density at the Parkdale Hub down on Queen.

I'll be clear: I like Gord a lot. His politics largely mirror mine and I think he's genuinely a good person who wants the best for the City, but unfortunately it doesn't always come out that way, especially when it comes to taller buildings close to transit.
Click to expand...

I essentially agree w/the above, but would reaffirm that this also applies to bike lanes/cycle tracks which tend to happen in Gord's Ward only when there is carnage, media pressure and loud demands from constituents.
 
Gord is a progressive on paper, but he knows that his primary constituency is Roncy/High Park home owners. He is the manifestation of old school Jane Jacobs/NDP housing and planning policies. Don't think he really believes in market/supply solutions to the housing crisis. He is a good guy and cares about the well-being of people in this city. But, despite voting for him consistently since I've been of voting age, I am disappointed by his performance when it comes to building new housing.
 
milkycontent said:
Gord is a progressive on paper, but he knows that his primary constituency is Roncy/High Park home owners. He is the manifestation of old school Jane Jacobs/NDP housing and planning policies. Don't think he really believes in market/supply solutions to the housing crisis. He is a good guy and cares about the well-being of people in this city. But, despite voting for him consistently since I've been of voting age, I am disappointed by his performance when it comes to building new housing.
Click to expand...
Yep very much a "the market is not a solution except for me when I'm making a $750k profit on a house I bought 20 years ago" progressive. On an interpersonal level he's a nice guy though, his resoluteness at the Parkside cycle lanes public consultation was quite admirable.
 
Thanks everyone for the opinions! I look forward to learning more about Gord (and the area more generally), but "says the right thing while following none of it" is the impression I too have right now.

jmi22 said:
Yep very much a "the market is not a solution except for me when I'm making a $750k profit on a house I bought 20 years ago" progressive. On an interpersonal level he's a nice guy though, his resoluteness at the Parkside cycle lanes public consultation was quite admirable.
Click to expand...

This is actually the only other time I'd interacted with him, and that's what led to my positive impression of him. I was very pleasantly surprised by his patient, but determined, responses to some of the "what about the traffic" arguments re: Parkside.
 
And this gets a REFUSAL Report to the next meeting of TEYCC::


Key bits:

1728656152921.png


**

1728656188653.png


**

1728656250463.png


**

1728656321939.png


****

All in all, not that harsh as Refusals go.

Most of the recommended changes are feasible w/o a massive conceptualization here.

The proponent can probably fight for the height, but will have to make some changes.
 
Really quite ridiculous that the city would lose their minds should the dev try to further consolidate lots in the 'neighbourhood' along Glenlake, and thus make plenty of space for laneway conveyances + quality public realm on Dundas while maintaining a decent floor plate. Instead they continue this delusion of wanting all the servicing and amenities of a metropolis, without allowing as simple an act of urbanization as lot consolidation
 
Gord tears into the proposal at the marked time here and then Community Council votes to reject it. Sounds like the next step is the OLT?
 
jmi22 said:
Perks strikes again. Maybe he's trying to turn all of Dundas West into Giraffe building copy cats?
Click to expand...
This is Planning, not Perks. Their job is to interpret the existing legal and regulatory structure vis-a-vis the Planning Act and report accordingly. I'm not necessarily defending the latter, but at least be accurate or you're just tilting at windmills.
 
ProjectEnd said:
This is Planning, not Perks. Their job is to interpret the existing legal and regulatory structure vis-a-vis the Planning Act and report accordingly. I'm not necessarily defending the latter, but at least be accurate or you're just tilting at windmills.
Click to expand...
Yes, but his tirade against it here (@lemon2 linked up the thread) and general attitude toward it undoubtedly has an effect on staff actions. In a perfect world the municipal bureaucracy is a wholly objective, uninfluenceable machine but I think its safe to say that's not the reality we exist within. I get there was issues with compliance with the Tall Building Guidelines and lot depth but flexibility on that stuff is not unheard of.

If this was the first time this had happened in this very particular area I wouldn't be lobbing such accusations at Perks, but its hard to not notice trends
 
jmi22 said:
Yes, but his tirade against it here (@lemon2 linked up the thread) and general attitude toward it undoubtedly has an effect on staff actions. In a perfect world the municipal bureaucracy is a wholly objective, uninfluenceable machine but I think its safe to say that's not the reality we exist within. I get there was issues with compliance with the Tall Building Guidelines and lot depth but flexibility on that stuff is not unheard of.

If this was the first time this had happened in this very particular area I wouldn't be lobbing such accusations at Perks, but its hard to not notice trends
Click to expand...
The first thing he says before his own remarks is "I would like to move Staff recommendations", meaning that he is endorsing Staff's opinion that it's not 'good planning' or whatever. I have no insider knowledge about this one and I don't doubt that personally, Gord isn't in favour. However, it would be very abnormal and worthy of investigation for a councillor to pressure staff to write something that contravenes the ethics requirements of OPPI and CIP to meet that councillor's own personal opinion. If Staff thought it was great and Gord didn't (or vice versa), that's what you would have seen in that video. Gord is very by-the-book: he knows the rules, and he does not break them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top