UT certainly isn't Fox news, but as I said before, the entire statement was an opinion. Opinions do not have supported by facts and even if others believe he was claiming something, he certainly repeated that he was stating his mind. If you think what he said cheapens political discourse then by all means please delete the comment rather than entertaining a forum page with attacks on one person for about 2 pages. By no means am I supporting what he said, but it seems there is no point in attacking him the same way you feel he attacked another.
 
Critique:

There are two issues here - 1. responses to the substantive aspects of the claim, which does have value (especially considering the context offered by MikeinTO's posting, which is probably as clear as it can get and have value in any thread), and 2. ad Hominem. As far as I can tell, the latter was kept to a minimum.

This conversation would have ended many posts ago if not for the need for rebut criticisms against said claim on the basis that it constitutes an "opinion", which goes beyond the initial debate of the matter (i.e. whether there was a "she" who got paid off). You can't really complain about this matter being dragged out at the same time being a party in its' doing so.

travis3000:

Corrected.

AoD
 
Last edited:
UT is an excellent education on city building. I have learned so much here since joining (and reading for many, many months before actually posting). I think most others can say the same.

The process for building a building in the city is not always clear. MikeinTO clearly laid out what is the process for many skyscrapers in the city, using the new 4S as an example. DtTO seems to have been on the forum enough to pick up on certain things, but perhaps the process was not clear. I do not know DtTO's background and it could be the case that this forumer came from another country where politicians do receive "gifts" for developments. This is not the case in Toronto though, and I felt it was misleading to suggest otherwise.

[sorry to drag this out any further]
 
This is one of my favourite developments in Toronto. Definitely looking forward to this one going up. Could this possibly get a height increase later on? The current size was deemed acceptable for this area by the DRP.
 
toforumer:

The proponent of the project can always ask for a minor variance later on and let the Committee of Adjustment decide whether to grant the additional floors.

The DRP provide advice to staff on the design aspects, just as city staff provide advice to elected officials on whether to approve the project.

AoD
 
Last edited:
The DRP have no formal say in deciding the height of a building, it's just a opinion they are providing. (Still, I'm glad they gave it.)

Height is negotiated through the Planning Department and passed on to City Council for approval… or goes to the OMB if the developer wants to try for more than the City is permitting. Total density factors into it, along with shadow and wind impacts, transportation impacts, etc. Or at least, those are all supposed to play a part. If the City perceives negative factors from allowing more height but feel that those may be mitigated by benefits that might be accrued were the developer to pony up some cash for community projects, then those are written into the deal as Section 37 benefits.

42
 
srs...

"oh here's all of this information about the project that I decided never to share with anyone until you just asked"
 
guys I just read somewhere that this tower is getting redesigned. does anyone know about that??????? :confused:
 
I read it on some blog and I cant find the blog otherwise I would have shared the URL. Ill look in the history and if I can find it I will give the URL.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
interchange42 said:
The DRP have no formal say in deciding the height of a building, it's just a opinion they are providing. (Still, I'm glad they gave it.)

Height is negotiated through the Planning Department and passed on to City Council for approval… or goes to the OMB if the developer wants to try for more than the City is permitting. Total density factors into it, along with shadow and wind impacts, transportation impacts, etc. Or at least, those are all supposed to play a part. If the City perceives negative factors from allowing more height but feel that those may be mitigated by benefits that might be accrued were the developer to pony up some cash for community projects, then those are written into the deal as Section 37 benefits.

42
Click to expand...

I know I'm going to get rapped in the mouth for saying this, but essentially, isn't that saying that city council will look the other way and approve a project if the developer forks up enough cash to make it interesting? I know the cash is supposed to be ear marked for community improvements, but could someone please tell me how a, say, 5 million dollar "donation", suddenly makes it ok to cause shadows and or create wind tunnels? With or without the extra cash, the problems remain, so how does any amount of money donated for improvements fix a problem that cannot be fixed? Forgive me for saying so, but it almost seems, dare it say it, like a bribe to get their proposal approved, so I repeat, how can extra cash make shadowing or winds go away if the structure height, that was the reason of said issues, remains the same? Just saying....please, you guys know far more then I, enlighten me, thanks :cool:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top