dt_toronto_geek said:
Speak of what you know.
Wong-Tam is one of the most progressive, tireless Councillors out there bringing a host of fresh ideas to her Ward, and to the city.....
Click to expand...

I will admit that I knew next to nothing about Wong-Tam when I voted for her but since then I have learned a lot. She likes to style herself as a "progressive" but what progressive causes has she championed since taking office? Falling balcony glass? Shark-fin soup? Long gun registry?

The single most important social justice issue facing Toronto at this very moment is our out of control police force. On this important issue Wong-Tam has been completely silent in addressing the endless stories of police abuses. I wouldn't call her progressive, I think she is a fraud and if she is a "tireless worker" how come she can never respond to emails (even with two assistants!). I have sent numerous emails to her over the past year and never once has she replied (or even acknowledged receipt).

As for her opposition to this project look how feeble her arguments are. She is concerned about shadows being cast on a school yard. Why this should even be a concern I don't know but considering that the Fours Seasons is practically kitty-corner to the school yard I think it is far too late to be concerned about shadows.

Her other concern is the driveway entrance fronting Bloor street. Ideally you would want to avoid such an entrance if you have an option but they don't have an option based on the site plan. This is not like One Bloor where you can locate the main entrance on a side-street (Hayden). This is like Trump Tower where the entrance is off of Adelaide which has very heavy pedestrian traffic.

The Marriott on Bloor and the Office Tower across the street both have driveway entrances on Bloor and I have never seen a problem with them.

If it were possible to move the driveway off of Bloor I am sure that the developer would have done this because there is a lot more money to be made along this stretch of Bloor with a store front instead of a driveway entrance.

I am not saying that this proposal should be rubber stamped. The podium looks good to me but I think that the tower needs some serious tweaking. Even though the design is above average - when you are building an 83 story Tower at this prominent location above average is not good enough. This site calls for something iconic. This is what Wong-Tam should be pushing for instead she is voicing stupid concerns about shadowing and driveways.
 
I think at this point "opposition" is too strong a word, there are concerns about 50 Bloor W. which have yet to be discussed and worked out, plus it's so very early in the development stage here. I'd think that the parking garage entrance/exit has to be configured off Cumblerland Ave., I don't see any other options as Bloor Street simply isn't workable. There are indeed 3 driveways between Yonge & Church on Bloor at the 55 Bloor E. condos (south side), the hotel/shopping/apartment underground parking across the street and at the S/W corner of Church & Bloor but there is far less foot traffic along there (except at the morning & afternoon rush hour) but that doesn't give license to create another wrong in an area that has at least double the amount of foot traffic where this building is being proposed.

Briefly on Wong-Tam she is actively involved with developers over the falling glass issues in her Ward, moved to eliminate the OMB from Toronto's business, is a driving force behind reviving the Jarvis Street historic corridor, beautifying one of the city's most historic parks - Allan Gardens, meeting with community and resident groups to help establish heritage districts in the old city (which is much of her Ward), she's a strong supporter of TCH and a leading advocate for allocating money toward deteriorating properties, is a strong proponent of the Yonge Street Planning Framework and experimenting with making downtown Yonge more pedestrian friendly in the summer, is a rabid heritage advocate, other major park improvements in her Ward, establishing a "Bank of Toronto" run by the City as a source of generating revenues and yes, getting the sale of shark fins banned in Toronto. A group of concerned residents got together last winter to discuss much needed dog park improvements at the back of Cawthra Park and she got it done, it's being worked on now. Many progressive ideas in there and she's into much, much more than what is mentioned above. She somehow managed to attend 7 community meetings this Tuesday alone. I'll admit, I've also had a few emails that were not responded to so that is a problem but the Mayor has only responded to two of my emails with "form" replies, the rest have gone unanswered. Wong-Tam, McConnell and Vaughan have hundreds of active developments in their three downtown Wards. I have to wonder if there are any other Councillors besides McConnell & Vaughan that have that much going on or who are working as hard as Wong-Tam in dealing with all these developments along with working to make Ward 27 such a desirable place to live, work and play for people of all income levels.
 
This site deserves something akin to The Pinnacle in London, not Commerce Court West with a slanted roof:

the_pinnacle_kpf270709_cityscape_5.jpg
 
A building like that is what we are looking for. But i fear there are no builders willing to fork out the cash, because, well, they don't have to. If it was an ugly tall mausoleum, it would still likely sell out. Why would they bother. Only someone who wants to stand out in the crowd would submit an iconic structure like the Pinnacle in London.
 
The Pinnacle is not what I want to see at Yonge and Bloor, because it may be looked upon as "trite" some time, and perhaps fairly soon. Having said that, the present 50 Bloor West proposal is so unappealing! I hunger for some imported talent, because let's face it, our own architects have become inbred. This is surely a make-a-buck scheme at best, while there should be something more civic-minded at this site. Morguard indeed, let's call the present proposal The Morgue.

Remember, though, how often One Bloor East was redesigned. Maybe there's a chance we can see something inspired by the work of Gehry or Nouvel. One can hope.
 
Peepers, if it makes you feel better, I've tried emailing her countless times (even when she asked publicly to be emailed about various issues) and I've never gotten a single response.
I've emailed other councilors in the past and they generally all respond eventually.

But to be fair as others have pointed out I can imagine she gets magnitude times more emails then almost all the other councilors.
 
AT, point taken. You are absolutely correct. The ones recently built, and the ones under construction are clones from the Bland School of Inferior Design and Architecture.
It must be one busy place, for photo copies and rubber stamps.
 
After attending a dozen or so Ward 27 development planning meetings within this year, it has been a pleasure to hear KWT speak and address the crowd. She has been very proactive with managing such a dynamic and demanding ward.

I don't find this preliminary design particularly offensive, but it is quite generic. If this is the solution to "something different" then this is as vanilla as it comes. In reply to posts on the previous page(s), I also would not settle for enjoying a design simply because it is "not a glass box". That cliche comment should not be used to accept alternate sub-par architecture. A location as prominent as the Holt's site deserves a better design. Hopefully throughout this planning process, they will come up with a more refined and distinct finished product.
 
Last edited:
A mentioned earlier, this application was rushed, and accordingly the design is probably even more preliminary as usual. I'd be surprised if this ended up being the final product.
 
... and I don't believe anybody is saying they 'hate' the design, only that it's fairly derivative. Other than the height there is little to be excited about.
 
I'm curious = why would the developer "rush" the application? I don't believe its just to save application fees. And frankly, I don't think it reflects well on the developer. Wouldn't you rather present to the publics a well thought our proposal then something that is rushed and "preliminary"? I understand that designs evolve from the application stage to the final approvals but something isn't adding up to me.
 
There can't be any reason other than to save on the application fees; they aren't going to derive any other benefit out of it, as the same zoning amendment process is still going to be ahead of them.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top