someMidTowner

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2011
Messages
9,333
Reaction score
15,140
Also, for what it's worth, I wasn't even asking how to SQUASH the development - I understand density & the fact that I live within a 10 minute walk of 4 subway stations - I just would like to propose a revision, and was asking how does one DO that.
A revision for a whole development because it blocks your view specifically is not how the planning process works.

A helpful board would simply have provided some guidance - such as "city councillor, member of parliament, member of provincial parliament, or Public Meeting (thanks Bayer), or whatever the actual response to my actual question might have been.

What would you even say to your councillor? KWT is focused on a housing crisis, and likely wouldn't show any interest in preserving premium views for existing homeowners
 

sjbdtz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
Some of us may be "mean", but you are completely selfish, and a true NIMBY. And I suggest you get a better realtor.

I'm being exactly as selfish as ANY other person with an opinion on the project. And hardly a NIMBY.... I've known there would be a project here since last July https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/cc/comm/communicationfile-86984.pdf and was patiently waiting to see what was proposed. I'm not a fan of it, and would like to know the best route to voice my opinion.
 

raptor

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,708
Reaction score
3,686
I'm being exactly as selfish as ANY other person with an opinion on the project. And hardly a NIMBY.... I've known there would be a project here since last July https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/cc/comm/communicationfile-86984.pdf and was patiently waiting to see what was proposed. I'm not a fan of it, and would like to know the best route to voice my opinion.
My last post on this topic, I promise, but this is exactly why I think public consultations on these matters should be abolished. It's an utter waste of time.
 

sjbdtz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
A revision for a whole development because it blocks your view specifically is not how the planning process works.



What would you even say to your councillor? KWT is focused on a housing crisis, and likely wouldn't show any interest in preserving premium views for existing homeowners

Maybe not, but a revision because it casts my entire building in darkness is the basis of sun/shade studies. We've had people with light meters taking readings, to assess the impact of various options. This option as-is is probably the worst possible impact on our access to light.
 

sjbdtz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
My last post on this topic, I promise, but this is exactly why I think public consultations on these matters should be abolished. It's an utter waste of time.

Glad to hear it. So in your opinion, Developers should be able to do ANYTHING they want, regardless of any type of impact to anybody else in the city. Then why even bother with a city plan? Or planners? Or zoning? Heck, you could even get rid of urbantoronto, since there would be no point in discussing anything. Do you even live in the city?
 

raptor

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
2,708
Reaction score
3,686
Glad to hear it. So in your opinion, Developers should be able to do ANYTHING they want, regardless of any type of impact to anybody else in the city. Then why even bother with a city plan? Or planners? Or zoning? Heck, you could even get rid of urbantoronto, since there would be no point in discussing anything. Do you even live in the city?
Since you asked, and didn't bother understanding my last post, developments should be left to the professionals (planners, engineers, architects, maybe even politicians at times), and taken out of the hands of the NIMBY general public.
In fact, I think you are the one who is suggesting we should get rid of the city plan, planners, zoning, since YOUR opinion is superior to those.
 

sjbdtz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
Since you asked, and didn't bother understanding my last post, developments should be left to the professionals (planners, engineers, architects, maybe even politicians at times), and taken out of the hands of the NIMBY general public.
In fact, I think you are the one who is suggesting we should get rid of the city plan, planners, zoning, since YOUR opinion is superior to those.


Nothing in this proposal has been approved by planning. This is a developer asking if they can CHANGE the zoning (which the planners implemented). Should the developer be the only voice allowed to communicate with the planners? Or should the public get a chance to provide an alternate viewpoint? Just because an engineer / architect has been hired by a developer to create a design, doesn't mean it takes into account the streetscape, or the affect on others, or the crowding of neighbouring buildings like the Kelly Library, nor the tenor of the UToronto lands which abut it. It just means they've figured out that this is how they make the most money. Planning has said that what they want is inappropriate. The developer is asking planning to change their mind. I want to know how to ask them NOT to. End of story.
 

JOAMA

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 14, 2016
Messages
66
Reaction score
123
Loool both of ur concerns hold some merit. Sjbdtz should call the city information line to find out and also get a different relator/use common sense next time. Raptor in my opinion shouldn’t pounce on people as soon as they ask a question even if u don’t agree with what that person is saying
Chill out y’all
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,159
Reaction score
16,103
City:
Toronto
Maybe not, but a revision because it casts my entire building in darkness is the basis of sun/shade studies. We've had people with light meters taking readings, to assess the impact of various options. This option as-is is probably the worst possible impact on our access to light.

If you live at 62 Wellesley St. W., as your post suggests, the shadow study provided with the development shows no new shadow on the apartment building.

Shadows generally only travel north of a building, as you are south, the building wouldn't be impacted.

And yea, you have a right to provide input in the process as all do in a democratic society. But Planners have a professional mandate to consider the "public good", which includes more than just somebody's views. View from a private apartment rank at almost 0 when it comes to considering the public good. So If you are going to complain about this proposal, i'd try to find a better argument. Nobody cares about your view. It's not protected. It's not part of the public good.

The need to consider the "public good" is often forgotten by the general public. When considering a development, a planner must not just consider the impacts on existing residents that inevitably show up to the meeting to complain, but also the impact that this development would have on the roughly 900 people that will end up living here by providing them housing in a preferred location.

Too often locals think planners aren't listening to them when they don't outright reject a proposal. What they forget is that new housing and development provides new houses and places of employment / amenities to people that would otherwise not get to enjoy those amenities - and that is a huge public good. The concerns of existing residents of the impacts of the development must be carefully weighed when compared to the good that is providing housing for nearly 1,000 people, in this case.
 

Koops65

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 31, 2018
Messages
1,749
Reaction score
5,529
City:
Toronto
Here is my take on it:

175158
 

WislaHD

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
9,871
Reaction score
9,156
Maybe the towers could be swapped on site, but generally, I don't have a problem with the proposed height/density/location.

It is all about execution at this point. It will be a visible location for the tower portion, and it would be an important location to get the human-scale correct at-grade.
 

sjbdtz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 4, 2011
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
[MODERATOR's NOTE: A couple of posts of a personal nature have been removed.]

A discussion forum is made richer with contributions from those ACTUALLY impacted by a developer's attempt to make money, than populated solely by those who don't even live in the neighbourhood. Again, this is an application to CHANGE what the city has proscribed for this neighbourhood. It is NOT what the planners have currently intended, and is simply a developer's proposal for how they can monetize their property. They have their perspective, and I have mine. Why is theirs the only one you think should have a platform?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Top