Northern Light said:
The owners of the Artful Dodger have retained counsel and are trying to oppose this.............

If the third party appeal to the OLT is not permitted here; this could be a test case of whether that will stand up in divisional court....... TBD.
Click to expand...
So now we have one party trying to stop another party's land value exercise cus would impede on their own redevelopment plans/land value exercise. Peak downtown Toronto right here.
 
TossYourJacket said:
So now we have one party trying to stop another party's land value exercise cus would impede on their own redevelopment plans/land value exercise. Peak downtown Toronto right here.
Click to expand...

That's ultimately the argument, in part, and your take to that extent is entirely fair.

That said, while I don't know this couple (the owners), my sense is that they think it will ruin their patio experience and impede the success of their business that they've spent decades building.

I get that.

As with all things, there are trade-offs. That someone loses, so to speak, is not the end of the world, in so far as the community ends up ahead.

But given that this is a Kingsett project, likely a zone and flip, likely not real..............

Yet, the zoning permissions, not the rendering, may live on to benefit a future owner, who will hire KirKor for the design, not AS+GG.....

Its all so murky.
 
Northern Light said:
That's ultimately the argument, in part, and your take to that extent is entirely fair.

That said, while I don't know this couple (the owners), my sense is that they think it will ruin their patio experience and impede the success of their business that they've spent decades building.

I get that.

As with all things, there are trade-offs. That someone loses, so to speak, is not the end of the world, in so far as the community ends up ahead.

But given that this is a Kingsett project, likely a zone and flip, likely not real..............

Yet, the zoning permissions, not the rendering, may live on to benefit a future owner, who will hire KirKor for the design, not AS+GG.....

Its all so murky.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. I'm 1000% more sympathetic to the patio argument, when I saw this story earlier so much of it focused on their lawyers talking about it preventing potential redevelopment, which like, I feel isn't an argument people can relate to.

Without that angle, I totally hope they succeed here.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Oh for sure. I'm 1000% more sympathetic to the patio argument, when I saw this story earlier so much of it focused on their lawyers talking about it preventing potential redevelopment, which like, I feel isn't an argument people can relate to.

Without that angle, I totally hope they succeed here.
Click to expand...

Irrespective of anyone's real take, the lawyers will make the argument they feel has legal play.
 
Northern Light said:
Irrespective of anyone's real take, the lawyers will make the argument they feel has legal play.
Click to expand...

8plwkm.jpg
 
Undead said:
The biggest loss by far here would be the theatre.
Click to expand...

I agree

Undead said:
It's reprehensible how we've sold off and continue to sell off such venues.
Click to expand...

The City was not the owner here, so I don't know that the City can be faulted for the 'sell off'.

Should the City have protected it? I'm not sure the City has an applicable planning tool for that unless the interior were deemed heritage, which if it was the case certainly had been severely molested.

Lets consult @innsertnamehere on if there's a good planning tool for preserving arts/events space?
 
Not really. Closest thing you can get is a heritage designation, but that only goes so far. You can't heritage-designate a use, only a structure (though some have certainly tried! Looking at you Oakville!)

If you want to retain an existing theatre space it would have to be secured through a community benefits charge cash-in-lieu benefit, but that takes those funds from other priorities. That, or you convince the developer to do it out of the goodness of their hearts / as a business case (that does happen some times too wiith the right developer!).

At the end of the day theatres are private businesses, not city community centres, and are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other business.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Not really. Closest thing you can get is a heritage designation, but that only goes so far. You can't heritage-designate a use, only a structure (though some have certainly tried! Looking at you Oakville!)

If you want to retain an existing theatre space it would have to be secured through a community benefits charge cash-in-lieu benefit, but that takes those funds from other priorities. That, or you convince the developer to do it out of the goodness of their hearts / as a business case (that does happen some times too wiith the right developer!).

At the end of the day theatres are private businesses, not city community centres, and are subject to the same rules and regulations as any other business.
Click to expand...

Yup - CBC and S37 were one of the ways of securing this. The city may also be able to protect it via non-residential replacement policies as written in TOcore/Midtown, though the intent of those policies was to apply strictly to office and institutional uses. But because it's written as "non-res", it can and has been used to apply to replacement of retail and hotel uses. Theatres I would assume the city can also make the case as a non-res use.

How this translates into conflicts later on once people move in, I would love to find out. I think one of the first to play out will be the Sneaky Dee's redevelopment- not even sure where that is right now
 
Well I mean more the socially accepted mores of our city/country--that as a society, we deem it acceptable for such venues to be sold off. I know the City is probably pretty limited in what can be done. Such travesties are always on the unscrupulous owners. Sure, profit motive and all that. But there's more to life than chasing every single dollar. In the long run, these venues arguably add much more to a society than another condo tower.
 
Let the great Kingsett bait and sell begin!

Btw, anyone see the rants by John Love of Kingsett on LinkedIn? Poor fella doesn't know he's not on Reddit or Twitter I guess, perhaps he got confused? But to summarize, its basically a constant stream of "let them eat cake" mentality, with lots of complaints about how the mean government hampers his profit margins from being a few extra billion or whatever.
 
UrbanAffair said:
Let the great Kingsett bait and sell begin!

Btw, anyone see the rants by John Love of Kingsett on LinkedIn? Poor fella doesn't know he's not on Reddit or Twitter I guess, perhaps he got confused? But to summarize, its basically a constant stream of "let them eat cake" mentality, with lots of complaints about how the mean government hampers his profit margins from being a few extra billion or whatever.
Click to expand...

BTW - it is Jon Love, not John. When ripping someone - should at least get the name right....
 
AHK said:
BTW - it is Jon Love, not John. When ripping someone - should at least get the name right....
Click to expand...

Or do you spell it Rob Kumer who took over as CEO of Kingsett on January 1st, 2024?

LOL

Of course, Jon is still Executive Chair and very much an active influence there.

****

As a side note, taking down Mr. Love, however one chooses to spell his first name is hardly ever a misplaced use of time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top