I've never read something so stupid. The city has approved over a half dozen 150 metre towers in the Humber Bay Shore community. The idea that the city sees this community as a sleepy suburb over one tower proposed at 200 metres seeing some reduction suggests the reasons are so far above your smug arrogant head to comprehend.

You take forumers love of height to entire different planes. Anything under 300 metres is average to you. I can only think of one spot that may satisfy your obsession. You could be one of the few people that would like the superficial Dubai Marina, Sheikh Zayad Road over the midrise, urban Deira core.

My apologize in advance but, I'm just sick of you derision to planning staff because they don't share your outrageous views; let developers build Toronto. Residential developers wouldn't complicate their projects with ground floor retail. A return to towers in a park wouldn't be out of the question either as its cheaper to build underground facilities. The end result would be taller towers but a place much worse than even Cityplace.
 
Did everyone read the report? There were big shadow and wind impacts on three different parks/open spaces. Shadows for the entire afternoon in a couple cases.
 
DtTO said:
I thought the city's job was to improve transit in order to satisfy demand in an area, not to actively inhibit growth so that it stays within the confines of the current transit system?

I'm not for or against Eau, but for the city to reject it based on height, and shadowing?? That's ridiculous. If people want to live here (demand is clear evidence of this), it is the city's job to accommodate them. It is clear that city planners are completely incompetent as they are now having to reject projects because they haven't had the foresight to provide proper transportation. Well, that's the density argument. I don't even know where to begin with the "shadowing concern" here. Really? Shadowing? Here? :confused:



This is just laughable. Do they actually think that the "area context" has kept up with the reality of development in the city or is this just an excuse?
Click to expand...

The cities job is to improve transit, unfortunately, this area isn't at the top of their priority. It is most likely money that is stoping them from improving transit here, and until they get the funds, they can't have massive amounts of people moving to areas that transit systems can't service. It's bad urban planning.
 
waterloowarrior said:
Did everyone read the report? There were big shadow and wind impacts on three different parks/open spaces. Shadows for the entire afternoon in a couple cases.
Click to expand...

Toronto Is the 4th largest city in NA, and the only city with residents who still care about shadow impacts. Lol
 
Everyone should have access to parks that are pleasant spaces to spend time in, not windswept wasteland in perpetual shadows.
 
The arrogance on this thread is tiring as is the blind worship of the city's recommendations as gospel. The idea that their views on development are the only correct way for Toronto to proceed is preposterous at best.

There are differing routes to take, each that will satisfy different groups of people.
 
Last edited:
isaidso said:
The arrogance on this thread is astonishing as is the blind worship of the city's recommendations as gospel. The idea that their views on development are the only correct way for Toronto to proceed is preposterous at best.

There are differing routes to take, each that will satisfy different groups of people.
Click to expand...

+1
 
junctionist said:
Everyone should have access to parks that are pleasant spaces to spend time in, not windswept wasteland in perpetual shadows.
Click to expand...

Is this an either or proposition? And since when has shadow been some curse? Many people seek it out. The idea that a place needs to be bathed in sunlight to be enjoyable/enticing is bizarre. You've been outside after the sun has gone down, right? During daytime, you'll also see just as many people on the sunny side of the street as the shady.

I have no issue with shade whatsoever. It's not exactly dark in the shade and more enjoyable, imo.
 
Last edited:
The idea that a place needs to be bathed in sunlight to be enjoyable/enticing is bizarre
Click to expand...

I think most people would have problems with parks perpetually without sunlight.
 
Excuse me for not knowing. Is this under Etobicoke or Toronto jurisdiction? I have seen this address listed as Toronto and also as Etibocoke?
 
O dew Sollay is in Etobicoke, which is part of Toronto. This will be considered at Etobicoke-York Community Council before going to Toronto City Council.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top