HousingNowTO said:
...well, in a round about way the EAST HARBOUR site is kinda "provincially owned" since CF money all comes from Queen's Park via the Teacher's Unions... ;)

View attachment 356665
Click to expand...

While the Ontario Government doesn't 'own' the pension fund.........

It can and will count a surplus as a net asset, in the same way that shortfall would be a liability.

So it does have a vested interest in seeing financial returns of the OTPP healthy.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the other TOD sites are provincially owned however, or at least will be, in order to construct the OL.

This is the one site that the province seems to be considering an MZO for a development site that isn't provincially owned or supported by the local council. We'll see though.
Click to expand...

I think only the Corktown TOD site is in public hands. All the others are on private property and IO has been working with the landowners on the TOD plans. The TOD sites aren't linked to the construction of the OL and are simply sites that are close to or adjacent to the future stations.
 
Last edited:
East Harbour – Public Meeting #3

Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021
Time: 6:30pm - 8:30pm

Location: zoom.us/join

Meeting ID: 880 7277 2814
 
Bjays92 said:
I know MZO's are somewhat controversial around here, but the use of MZO's to ensure density around major public transit sites and stations is a very good thing imo
Click to expand...

Especially given Toronto's NIMBY planning department, which thinks that the fact that there are community hubs nearby is a reason not to densify.
 
evandyk said:
Especially given Toronto's NIMBY planning department, which thinks that the fact that there are community hubs nearby is a reason not to densify.
Click to expand...
Planning is in a bind. They cannot in general go against City policies. City Councillors have made it clear that they do not en masse support a city-wide zoning increase, preferring to fight out pretty much every application. So approvals are up to City Council in the end, (possibly overruled by the OLT), not planning who have to test every application against the voluminous rules and guidelines that form City policy.

Meanwhile, being overruled by the OLT is mostly fine with City Council as they have someone else to blame when irate constituents get back to them with complaints about what just happened in their backyards. "I didn't approve that! We had no choice!"

All of that is not to say that all of Toronto planners are crusaders who would suddenly do the right thing if their shackles were loosened, many are fine with the shackles… but some I know would do the right thing, right now though they just pretty much can't.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Planning is in a bind. They cannot in general go against City policies. City Councillors have made it clear that they do not en masse support a city-wide zoning increase, preferring to fight out pretty much every application. So approvals are up to City Council in the end, (possibly overruled by the OLT), not planning who have to test every application against the voluminous rules and guidelines that form City policy.

Meanwhile, being overruled by the OLT is mostly fine with City Council as they have someone else to blame when irate constituents get back to them with complaints about what just happened in their backyards. "I didn't approve that! We had no choice!"

All of that is not to say that all of Toronto planners are crusaders who would suddenly do the right thing if their shackles were loosened, many are fine with the shackles… but some I know would do the right thing, right now though they just pretty much can't.

42
Click to expand...
I get all that, I just like to call them out on it.
 
interchange42 said:
Meanwhile, being overruled by the OLT is mostly fine with City Council as they have someone else to blame when irate constituents get back to them with complaints about what just happened in their backyards. "I didn't approve that! We had no choice!"
Click to expand...
100% right - Councillors love to say "it was beyond our control" - and blame the OLT, TLAB, etc.

Essentially, what we expect to happen on "CITY-WIDE ROOMING HOUSES" --- Council will kick the can until they lose a Human-Rights Case or similar. Some of the Councillors - even in the inner-suburbs are OK with "CITY-WIDE ROOMING HOUSES" -- but they can't cast a vote in support if they want to WIN re-election next Fall.
 
How did the meeting go? Sad I missed it. Was it much different from the last one? Was there anything intriguing?
 
Got a chuckle from your linked slide:

"...the kind of messing that we're talking about, but you can see that..."

EastHarbour.jpg




(
https://twitter.com/x/status/1451326078253993985
)
 
abovegrade said:
How did the meeting go? Sad I missed it. Was it much different from the last one? Was there anything intriguing?
Click to expand...
RECORDING is Here ---- they started to talk more about the Affordable-Housing / Workforce-Housing and Schools concepts at this meeting, and promised "firmer details" at a meeting in approx FEB 2022...

us02web.zoom.us

Video Conferencing, Web Conferencing, Webinars, Screen Sharing

Zoom is the leader in modern enterprise video communications, with an easy, reliable cloud platform for video and audio conferencing, chat, and webinars across mobile, desktop, and room systems. Zoom Rooms is the original software-based conference room solution used around the world in board...
us02web.zoom.us us02web.zoom.us
 
They definitely need to work on that massing. Great in context of space and usage, but horrible in the look and feel. basically every tower is the same height! Horrible views for residential on the interior and as a view of the city. Why are we building such table top density nodes? Even if the building designs are interesting and innovative they will fall prey to not being visual in other parts of the city. Poor planning in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top