UtakataNoAnnex said:
Perhaps due to Mr. Bozikovic's profession there's more imperative to investigate this...but is it fair to ask us to read threw all those thicker-than-the-Bible studies that you linked us? There is no guarantee that we'd come to same conclusion as you have...or have even gotten the same critical points here. And there still is the issue of differing opinions in the end.
Click to expand...

Anyone can have any opinion they like; in so far as it's a preference (preferring raita to hummus, or blue to red) ; but when it comes to speculating about what's happening in our city, there ought to be some reasonable expectation of trying to be informed.

I did the work of finding and linking to the studies and presentations involved. I brought forward select images that I hold out as key for the click averse, and I read the entire stuff I linked to as well. It took about 25 minutes. (yes the study is ~180 pages pages, but that includes long winded background, lots of pictures, and end notes, the substance is far shorter)

UtakataNoAnnex said:
...juxtaposed to 171-175 Lowther Avenue just down the way, where the developers are planning to mow down elder buildings Doug style, save one...how is it they're getting away with that? To me, 40 Walmer is better suited for development if we're planning on preserving history here.
Click to expand...

There is currently no HCD in place, on that there is no dispute. One heritage building is being partially preserved. The others were not designated.

That said, that development has not yet been approved. I do believe it likely will be; though, hopefully with a few tweaks.
 
Northern Light said:
I did the work of finding and linking to the studies and presentations involved. I brought forward select images that I hold out as key for the click averse, and I read the entire stuff I linked to as well. It took about 25 minutes. (yes the study is ~180 pages pages, but that includes long winded background, lots of pictures, and end notes, the substance is far shorter)
Click to expand...
I get that...and your effort is appreciated. And it is a breath of fresh air from those who pull "facts" and figures out from their behinies to push forward their troll narratives...so I don't want to discourage that. But what is left can still be open to individual conclusions and understandings...

Northern Light said:
There is currently no HCD in place, on that there is no dispute. One heritage building is being partially preserved. The others were not designated.

That said, that development has not yet been approved. I do believe it likely will be; though, hopefully with a few tweaks.
Click to expand...
...and this where I find the system highly hypocritical in doing so, IMO. And thus from the public eye, it becomes very disheartening to see elder buildings with character left to the whims of a developer's wrecking ball and often for disingenuous and bottom line reasonings. This is where government and its departments need to step in to say, "No, you can't do that!"

So with that opinion said, informed, spirited or otherwise, I will not be supporting 171 Lowther proposal unless most..if not all the elder buildings are left in a recognizable state like which is being done mostly with the HuntleySelby proposal..And I don't care the if the building they're erecting in the wake of such is so wonderful it raises Mr. Prii from the dead, so he can design us amazing residential towers again. That current proposal is simply unacceptable to me.

And finally...

AlexBozikovic said:
I have indeed read the report that @Northern Light brought forward, along with all of the major planning reports on the Annex going back to the 1970s. We disagree on the implications.
Click to expand...
...and I am not surprised in the least about that.
 
christiesplits said:
Hey @Northern Light, do you know which current/under construction building in the West Annex is the tallest?
Click to expand...

In the eastern Annex, I think that would be Cielo right now (29s/with request to go 34s); based on UT's map, but work is underway, in part on 316 Bloor West as well and that is 37s

If you're going for proposals nothing is taller, 328 (Bloor/Spadina N/E corner) is seeking 37s; and the proposal on the west side is seeking 35s
 
Last edited:
christiesplits said:
As per Matt Elliot's City Hall Watcher newsletter, the TEYCC will be discussing this proposal on Wednesday, January 24.

Toronto City Council

secure.toronto.ca secure.toronto.ca
Click to expand...

LOL, easy to lose sight of it, given the slight tangent the thread went on, but I reported that a bit before Matt, back on p.2 of the thread! ( a week ago)

40 Walmer | 116.65m | 35s | 2114778 Ontario Inc | Turner Fleischer

Thanks for posting as I didn’t know that there were two proposals for this corner!
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
This one was refused at Council many moons ago...........

That refusal was subsequently appealed to the OLT.

The first CMC was conducted June 5th of this year; the next one is on Sept 20th.

No Merit Hearing is yet scheduled.

@Paclo
 
...awaiting for the hopefully OLT approved thumbs down then.
 
...well then, I'll amend this to: I hope it's our worthwhile. As whatever it maybe will more likely get built than the vapour proposal for it's churched neighbpur just south of this.
 
The Settlement Offer here is now public.

Now 25 storeys.


1732311630847.png

1732311666819.png


This next bit is for @HousingNowTO

1732311703309.png

1732311724730.png

1732311753253.png


1732311948945.png


@Paclo
 

Attachments

  • 1732311819549.png
    1732311819549.png
    693.6 KB · Views: 7
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top