Downtown Toronto
Active Member
"The Nimby is strong with this one"
- Thread starter Southcore
- Start date
Kenojuak
Active Member
Which one of you is Saud Adi, and which one is Tariq?
Bad takes.
TOD intensification is not the same as "build anything anywhere".
This was a shit proposal with 0m (zero metre!!) side yard tower setbacks that would have exported separation distance requirements onto adjacent sites that are both appropriate for tower redevelopment.
It also completely bungled shadows, including shadows on a sun protected park, and physical transition.
An incompetent application that didn't even pretend to meet the policy framework. Huge waste of everyone's time and money.
I encourage anyone who hasn't actually looked at the application materials to go do so before commenting: here's a direct link
Not every site is a tower site. This certainly is not one. Wishing for something does not make it good planning.
Also, it is not literally across the street from St. George Station.
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
It's about as close as you can get, being a 2-3 minute walk to either the Bedford Road or St George Street entrances, not to mention the entrance in 252 Bloor (Which is literally right across the street)
Also let's not kid ourselves, nobody is racing to demolish and redevelop the adjacent sites.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
This should serve as a nice future reference point for when people claim "LPAT approves every development" because it is certainly not true. Flawed proposals like this one will certainly face opposition at LPAT and this time they came up short in justifying that their proposal constituted sound planning.
LPAT largely rubber-stamp approves things that should have been approved by the municipality anyway, but didn't because the City dropped the ball in responding on time, knowingly opposed projects with sound planning due to nimby-induced direction from Council, or played dumb regarding the prevailing provincial planning policy and legislation.
LPAT largely rubber-stamp approves things that should have been approved by the municipality anyway, but didn't because the City dropped the ball in responding on time, knowingly opposed projects with sound planning due to nimby-induced direction from Council, or played dumb regarding the prevailing provincial planning policy and legislation.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Strike Two!! Perhaps they should get Richard Wengle up to bat next...as I am sure his frilly bits would likely swoon over the ridiculous gentrified community this has become.
Note to Uno Prii: I am so glad you where able to get your buildings in when you did, as today they would of never seen the light of day here. /sigh
Note to Uno Prii: I am so glad you where able to get your buildings in when you did, as today they would of never seen the light of day here. /sigh
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Yes, the proposal had issues, but it wasn't "shit" or "incompetent". I'm fine with a 0m side setback on both sides of the property line. I don't think all towers should sit in isolation, set back from one another, but shoulder to shoulder at the podium level. I also do not care about shadows. I just don't, sorry.
I'm most curious that you think the adjacent sites with existing 11 and 19 storey buildings are the ones we should be looking to redevelop. The embodied carbon in those far-outweighs that in 64 PA. You're also willing to displace 100s of residents to demo the existing towers, only to try and build them taller and denser than they are today, in the context of the same community to the north who organized to fight this so resolutely?
I mean, sure, but while it seems your thought process is completely in line with existing policy, it's completely detached from reality or the critical lens through which we need to view development and redevelopment in 2021.
You can also get to St. George Station through OISE. It very much is 'literally across the street'.
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Is it possible to forward the link for where you found this? I searched the LPAT site and was not able to find it. Also searched canlii.org but couldn't find it there either.
Appreciated!
Northern Light
Superstar
No wetland or environmentally significant lands on site.
No historically significant buildings either.
Are you sure it would qualify?
Kenojuak
Active Member
Received it privately through the grapevine... here is a download link: https://filebin.net/j76f9kpsegwh64zk
Guess it will be posted on LPAT E-Decisions and CanLII sooon
MoObserves
Active Member
We kind of knew this already, but its interesting calling it "one-legged stool."
Adi had a great initial proposal which they should've stuck with with lower height, instead of inflating it into the second one-legged box
Adi had a great initial proposal which they should've stuck with with lower height, instead of inflating it into the second one-legged box
CHATTER: “One-legged stool” build plan quashed on Prince Arthur (Mar. 2021)
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Tl,dr: We stopped this development because we can. Not for any other real reasons we can think of outside the ones we made up. And oh, it felt right too...We kind of knew this already, but its interesting calling it "one-legged stool."
Adi had a great initial proposal which they should've stuck with with lower height, instead of inflating it into the second one-legged box
CHATTER: “One-legged stool” build plan quashed on Prince Arthur (Mar. 2021)
A Torontonian Now
Senior Member
How the site looks today (and now likely will remain for some time):
RonThom
Active Member
For sale, again. Guess this is "cut bait" following the LPAT defeat.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...with a string of high profile defeats, I can't see anyone wanting to this spot outside of a surface parking lot at this point.
I suppose one could go for restoring the current building for commercial office purposes, but the Atwood NIMBY's may not even go for that. And this is why we can never have nice things in this area. /sigh
I suppose one could go for restoring the current building for commercial office purposes, but the Atwood NIMBY's may not even go for that. And this is why we can never have nice things in this area. /sigh
fiendishlibrarian
Active Member
Atwood NIMBYs is an apt term...mind you my memory goes back to Margaret MacMillan and the Battle of Varsity Stadium...hell I remember when John Barber, Gare Joyce and that whole drunken Dooney's Globe and Mail crowd denounced the new - c. 1997 - Spadina streetcar as the "strip mining of Spadina". 'Tis a U of T landed gentry tradition to oppose...things...
Last edited: