Which means that it would have been a routine quick-release item, not debate even, just following the Planning Department's recommendations and following the Councillor's lead. Density proponents need a Councillor to advocate at City Hall for worthy projects… but who then didn't care if the other Councillors didn't vote their way for projects in their ward.

Essentially it's rare at Council for the Councillors to go against staff recommendations, so really, it's getting the recommendations for gentle-ish density like this in the first place that's more important. (This one should never have gone (way) overtime and been appealed to the OMB in the first place. Planning should have been advocates for this one.)

42
 
interchange42 said:
Planning should have been advocates for this one.)42
Click to expand...

Agree. Is the primary reason for opposing it the shadowing of Allan Gardens? Or is there something else - i.e. does planning ever make arbitrary decisions based on other unreported criteria?

I think this kind of density is a nice compromise for a major intersection in DT Toronto that has shadowing concerns- 12 or 13 tapered storeys feels kinda right.
 
Now if we could just wipe out the rooming houses and replace them with high end condos we could get rid of the crack addicts, the homeless people, and the hookers and drunks as well as the mentally ill it would be a nice place to live.
 
UrbanFervour said:
Agree. Is the primary reason for opposing it the shadowing of Allan Gardens? Or is there something else - i.e. does planning ever make arbitrary decisions based on other unreported criteria?

I think this kind of density is a nice compromise for a major intersection in DT Toronto that has shadowing concerns- 12 or 13 tapered storeys feels kinda right.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for some large townhouses to increase the market value of the neighborhood.
 
Patrick Wingert said:
Now if we could just wipe out the rooming houses and replace them with high end condos we could get rid of the crack addicts, the homeless people, and the hookers and drunks as well as the mentally ill it would be a nice place to live.
Click to expand...

Replacing rooming houses with high end condos doesn't "get rid of" anyone, it just pushes some of society's most disenfranchised people further into destitution, more likely than not shifting the burden to government services. At the end of the day this is bad for everyone -- even scoundrels who don't give two shits about anyone but themselves.
 
This proposal is perfect for this corner. It is not displacing anyone or anything but an empty lot. It is on a reasonably busy downtown corner on a bus route. It is a low rise and will bring in more eyes on the street with a park view with some people who can spend money in the neighbourhood.
 
PMT said:
An OMB hearing is scheduled for November 13, 2018.
Click to expand...

Ugh I was hoping they would start on this immediately. Why would the city ever delay any development in this bad area of the city. They should be begging developers to build east of downtown.
 
I think the design is nice, but I have little sympathy when there are significant shadow impacts on Allen Gardens.

If you look at the shadow study, from sunrise to about 11:30 a.m. from fall to spring the southeast corner and entrance to the park is shadowed. Shadows decrease the usability of outdoor space dramatically -- it is significantly more unpleasant to walk in shadow in winter. You may casually dismiss this, but I think the City is right to seek a shorter or modified built form to minimize or eliminate this possibility.

Development pressures in the area will only increase over time, and eventually what is meant to be a public space is degraded to maximize value for private interests. There are few parks in this area. I am quite pro-development, but builders should be purchasing and designing property in the area with this policy in mind.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top