Automation Gallery
Superstar
ummm this is a 357 king W thread people
Right, and there wont be much to talk about if it gets shelved.
ummm this is a 357 king W thread people
I used to work for a development company and I remember a time we applied for approval to build a plaza on a great piece of land on a major roadway (no specifics). The city initially liked the proposal and also agreed with our request for a signalized access point – provided, of course, that we pay for everything even remotely related to this improvement. We were okay with this, but then the city demanded that we allow the adjacent plaza access over and through our proposed development to the adjacent plaza to provide them with better access. This would have doubled the traffic crossing our site, allow our neighbours to cannibalize our parking and added substantially to the size and cost of this improvement – but with no contribution from the adjacent plaza owners – who, as it turned out, was a very good friend of the then mayor. We objected to the proposed changes and swiftly found our project rejected for reasons that came out of the blue and had no basis in the zoning or OPA requirements (yes you can appeal to the OMB but the cost of lawyers, engineers and planners as well as the year long delay is greater than the cost of the “requested†chnges). Coincidentally, two of our other projects were suddenly stricken with “city hall flu†and were being refused as well. This of course caused (read “forcedâ€) us to reconsider and adjust our plans to accommodate our neighbours and suddenly our projects proceeded quite smoothly.
The moral is, never underestimate the power of city hall to get what they want whether it be supported by zoning provisions or good planning principals or padding the pockets of those in control of said processes.
I believe in good sound planning principals, but far too often they are simply used as an “extraction†tool.
So you don't think that this project will eventually get approved pretty much as is, with the main change being more money being "donated" to the local community? What I have been saying is that the City uses its power to approve or reject a given proposal, in order to squeeze as much money from the developer as they will tolerate without going to the OMB, said money to be spent on the local neighbourhood. At no point did I say that the City employees were corrupt or taking part of the money for themselves, but they ARE using their legal authority to extract as much money as possible from the developers for the community, using morally dubious techniques such as withholding approvals until the developer caves and agrees to additional donations beyond the required section 37 payments. And given the multitude of restrictive bylaws and requirements that any development must legally follow -- the regulations are so restrictive than most major developments will inevitably break them -- it is quite easy for the City planners to produce a list of violations sufficient to disallow the project, unless the developer agrees to pay additional money to the community in compensation for the City ignoring the violations.
As I said, classic dictatorship techniques: create a long list of regulations that most people would inevitably be forced to break as part of daily life, and then selectively enforce those regulations in order to get what they want (obedience to the government for a dictatorship, additional money for community improvements for the City).
In a sense, boo hoo. It was your company who wanted to develop a piece of land in isolation when one of the most fundamental 'planning principles' is connectivity. Any reasonable city which is not entirely wedded to the automobile would reject what you had proposed, so really it was you guys who f**ed up by bringing something of this nature to the table (even lip service to this idea would have gotten further than arguing against it).
What's more, re: the 'cannibalized' parking, those spaces only have to be constructed as a minimum. If you build them as part of your development, you've done your due diligence and therefore can't be rejected on the grounds that others might use them.
Apparently it's by Great Gulf. And launches soon--well by April 2012.
Or it was because:
The proposal represents an inappropriate development for reasons including:
- The proposal does not have adequate regard to certain matters of Provincial interest as outlined in the Planning Act for reasons discussed in this report;
- The proposal is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform with the Growth Plan for reasons discussed in this report;
- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the Official Plan policies, including policies related to built form, or tall buildings, with respect to an appropriate relationship with its context;
- The proposal does not conform with nor maintain the intent of the King-Spadina Secondary Plan, including the objectives of ensuring new development is compatible with the built form context of the adjacent buildings, and ensuring that massing provides appropriate proportional relationships;
- The proposal could set a negative precedent that could encourage demolition or significant changes to properties within King-Spadina to achieve significant height increases and/or high densities that bear no resemblance to the in-force planning regime;
- The tower portion of the proposal does not provide appropriate separation from adjacent sites, as required by the City's Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals. The approval of this proposal could compromise the application of the Design Criteria for the Review of Tall Buildings Proposals to other sites;
- The proposal provides insufficient or no setback from the side lot lines, which can compromise quality of life for future residents, and the development rights of adjacent landowners; and
- The lack of appropriate yard setbacks or stepbacks compromises Council-approved OPA 2 by exporting facing distance constraints onto adjacent sites;
There is no question that appropriate intensification and development are planning goals in King-Spadina. City Planning staff are prepared to consider development on the site but only in a manner that is respectful of the existing planning policy framework. The proposed massing overwhelm the streetscape and are detrimental to the character of this portion of King Street West. The proposal is inappropriate and unsupportable and does not represent good planning.
- - -
That's the conclusion to the report, and it seems more substantive than your assessment, but you are welcome to try to convince me otherwise.
42
Density of 30.8 times lot size is a major issue i have.
iirc, the max the city has authorized for any project has been 15x
that has to be some kind of joke, right cdr? i can name a half dozen that exceed 15x off the op of my head (without even thinking about it).