That's exactly what OPA183 prescribes. Minus the 250m, though. Unfortunately once that 10m is factored in, most Yonge sites are neutered so infinite height isn't the kind of panacea for setback loss that it may seam.
ProjectEnd, makes sense that it's mandated else developers probably wouldn't do it. As for the 250m reference that's just to keep the height zealots on this site at bay. Yonge street south of Bloor will continue to undergo intense intensification. Condo5 and farther down Ryerson Student Center give me hope. Appreciate your input.
 
A Request for Direction Report, seeking to oppose this at LPAT is headed to the April 20th meeting of TEYCC.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-165304.pdf

Reasons for Refusal:

1617806272547.png

1617806291612.png


******

I generally respect staff recommendations, and understand and accept most of the above.

This:

1617806333038.png


Has no place whatsoever in this report when it's almost on top of the subway and a 90 second walk to College Station.

******

In the even the City loses..............this is what they hope to secure through Section 37:

1617806427356.png
 
I feel they need to actually look at what’s being proposed ... everything they pointed out saying the building does not have, it has. Please don’t rid this design it’s stunning. And adds a lot of difference to the area. it's dramatic in a good way. The curves and details are nice... and how it effects McGill street irrelevant.
 
I feel they need to actually look at what’s being proposed ... everything they pointed out saying the building does not have, it has. Please don’t rid this design it’s stunning. And adds a lot of difference to the area. it's dramatic in a good way. The curves and details are nice...

See the below quote from @ProjectEnd

It's a value exercise. It's not real.

I doubt we will see this built in this design iteration, irrespective of whether its approved at LPAT

and how it effects McGill street irrelevant.

Not a reasonable statement. One can argue about the relative weight that should be placed on that; but there is no basis on which to dismiss any development's impact on something entirely.
 
I feel they need to actually look at what’s being proposed ... everything they pointed out saying the building does not have, it has. Please don’t rid this design it’s stunning. And adds a lot of difference to the area. it's dramatic in a good way. The curves and details are nice... and how it effects McGill street irrelevant.
I can has anime condo?
 
A Request for Direction Report, seeking to oppose this at LPAT is headed to the April 20th meeting of TEYCC.

Report here: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-165304.pdf

Reasons for Refusal:

View attachment 311088
View attachment 311089

******

I generally respect staff recommendations, and understand and accept most of the above.

This:

View attachment 311090

Has no place whatsoever in this report when it's almost on top of the subway and a 90 second walk to College Station.

******

In the even the City loses..............this is what they hope to secure through Section 37:

View attachment 311091

I disagree with the assumption that parking should be entirely unnecessary, essentially because it is ableist. This should be self-explanatory.
 
I disagree with the assumption that parking should be entirely unnecessary, essentially because it is ableist. This should be self-explanatory.
I admit to a certain level of ignorance on accessibility issues and am welcome to being educated. That said, if transit were made fully accessible, as is the goal, why should parking be any more necessary for someone with mobility challenges than for the general population?
 
I admit to a certain level of ignorance on accessibility issues and am welcome to being educated. That said, if transit were made fully accessible, as is the goal, why should parking be any more necessary for someone with mobility challenges than for the general population?

My mother, who lived in a mid-size town in Québec and did not require mobility aids, once visited me while I lived at the Residences of College Park, which had indoor access to Metro and College Station. When at home, she was perfectly capable to use her car to go shopping, because she could park near the entrance. But during her visit, she could not accompany me to Metro, because it was still too far to walk.

Of course, people in her situation can and do use motorized wheelchairs, but if given the choice, most would want to avoid it and maintain their mobility and independence, and preserve a certain level of fitness.

I'm not a car lover - I'm 56 and I've never owned one. But let's face it: transit, even if accessible, can be an ordeal when you have mobility issues.
 
My mother, who lived in a mid-size town in Québec and did not require mobility aids, once visited me while I lived at the Residences of College Park, which had indoor access to Metro and College Station. When at home, she was perfectly capable to use her car to go shopping, because she could park near the entrance. But during her visit, she could not accompany me to Metro, because it was still too far to walk.

Of course, people in her situation can and do use motorized wheelchairs, but if given the choice, most would want to avoid it and maintain their mobility and independence, and preserve a certain level of fitness.

I'm not a car lover - I'm 56 and I've never owned one. But let's face it: transit, even if accessible, can be an ordeal when you have mobility issues.
That, then, is preference not to use the tools she has been given. In other words, it's "car-centric". I work on the City's accessibility committee, and this argument would not fly.
 
That, then, is preference not to use the tools she has been given. In other words, it's "car-centric". I work on the City's accessibility committee, and this argument would not fly.
Well, in this particular case, Planning is proposing to reject this development proposal partly because it has no parking, so I assume the city still sees value in having at least some parking spaces.
 
Well, in this particular case, Planning is proposing to reject this development proposal partly because it has no parking, so I assume the city still sees value in having at least some parking spaces.
This building will probably sell well over $1500/sq ft. Am I thinking incorrectly that anyone living there will be ok paying for a cab?
 

Back
Top