[Big Daddy]

Why do you presuppose the OMB will turn it down? I don't see any reason why they would not see it as consistent with all the other major developments proposed and approved here and across the downtown. I’m quite optimistic that the OMB will be able to see past the local (political or planning) issues and reward the developers for their inclusion of public benefits. it makes sense that council consider (if allowed) increasing the developers contributions in lieu of the extra density. (money toward transit improvements?)

 

[skyrise]

My belief is that the OMB will deny this based on the height which is currently set at 157m with the TIFF precedent. Typically they will approve if the height is consistent with what is already in the surrounding area. Now one could arguably include the Ritz and Shangri-La as both are in the immediately area but technically not in the ED . Its a long shot at best, because the OMB does not measure the value of a development, just whether or not it conforms to the current planning and precedents already set in the area. City counsel ultimately has the final say and they are the ones who will look at the merits of each project and what value and contributions they bring. So its is my belief that this one will ultimately rest in the hands of counsel. On a side note, City Planning refused Massey, but counsel overturned that and approved it. The same is happening with Eau de Soleil which was denied by the planning dept. and is now going to the OMB. That one might have a better chance of getting approval but again there is no precedent in the area for that height so it could be a long shot as well.

 

[waterloowarrior]

planning staff report not ready yet... will be on the supplementary agenda
http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE28.2

 

[TheTigerMaster]

SkyriseL

Yup. There's no way that the OMB will approve this. I expect this to go to Counsel and for it to be approved there. Adam Vaughan is in support so that will help to move things along.

 

[skyrise]

Thanks TigerMaster
I hope you are right ,as I too was under the impression that Vaughn was an ally of Mirvish. Fingers crossed!

 

[adma]

Close, but I would say that I am pro-Toronto and pro-good development and pro-bringing Toronto into the 21st century.

And in expressing that so-called absence of "timid and provincial", you're sounding even more provincial. Like a dumb little boy from the sticks who wants to be in the sooperdoopermodern Big Time a la some fantasy notion of NYC.

But, you know what--in *actually* visiting, say, NYC, you sound like the kind of person who'd be absolutely, airheadedly, disinterestedly, ignorant in taking in the comprehensive warts-and-all urban fabric that *pre-dates* the 21st century. Even though such "taking-in" might actually be a more sophisticated and altogether satisfying and worthy-of-NYC way of beholding NYC than simply concentrating on the ooh! aah! ultracontemporary.

As I said in the 80 Bloor thread: rather than regretting how Toronto lacks the architecturally spectacular, it might actually be a disarmingly richer thing to nurture a well-informed ability to appreciate NYC's rough equivalents to the existing "unspectacular" 80 Bloor.

Another way of looking at it--try to channel the Lou Reed-ness of NYC, rather than ignorantly dismissing him as a dead 71-year-old man.

 

[skyrise]

Me thinks you have missed the irony in your diatribe. I do not recall comparing Toronto to NYC, but I'm glad that you acknowledge that Toronto is a progressive city much like New York. I love all that New York has to offer (been there over a dozen times). The most interesting parts of the city are the oldest and I have a huge appreciation and admiration for the early to mid 20th century Art Deco that is so prevalent in the city. Likewise with Toronto I love the gritty neighborhoods like Chinatown and Kensington as much I like the Distillery District and St. Lawrence Market.

You see Adma it isn't an either/or proposition. We can actually have both! Yes its true...its not like the city is at risk of losing it "grittiness". Shouldn't we aspire to have a few high profile, quality developments? Otherwise wouldn't we be more like Hamilton or Buffalo?

Why so short-sighted Adma? Why no vision? Imagine yourself 100 years in the future. What has more historical significance, a block of early 20th century warehouses, or a 21st century Gehry masterpiece?

If you don't know the answer to that, Buffalo is beckoning for you.

 

[argus]

Shouldn't we aspire to have a few high profile, quality developments? Otherwise wouldn't we be more like Hamilton or Buffalo?

That kinda reads like an either/or scenario.

Probably best you check out the architecture in Buffalo.

 

[skyrise]

Exactly. It's is an either or if we are talking about Buffalo. Toronto and Buffalo looked eerily alike 50 years ago. The difference is that the picture from Toronto is from 1960, and Buffalo is from current day. Toronto has grown and progressed while Buffalo has remained stagnant. So I really don't understand your point.

Buffalo Skyline current Day:

Toronto Skyline 1960 Derek Flack:

 

[DtTO]

Like a dumb little boy from the sticks who wants to be in the sooperdoopermodern Big Time a la some fantasy notion of NYC.

I'm guessing you're the dumb nostalgic man from the sticks who wants to be in the sooperdooperclassy Old Time a la some fantasy notion of NYC?

Exactly. It's is an either or if we are talking about Buffalo. Toronto and Buffalo looked eerily alike 50 years ago. The difference is that the picture from Toronto is from 1960, and Buffalo is from current day. Toronto has grown and progressed while Buffalo has remained stagnant. So I really don't understand your point.

Some people are far too scared of change to see past the nostalgia. I imagine that those same people would go back a few decades if they were given a one use time machine.

 

[argus]

Exactly. It's is an either or if we are talking about Buffalo. Toronto and Buffalo looked eerily alike 50 years ago. The difference is that the picture from Toronto is from 1960, and Buffalo is from current day. Toronto has grown and progressed while Buffalo has remained stagnant. So I really don't understand your point.

The point is that you chided adma for a supposed either/or scenario, then engaged in one yourself. Fifty years ago is fifty years ago, and suggesting that one rejected building today will send Toronto onto to some road to mediocrity or stasis is overly dramatic. Many things contribute to the progress of a city, not just the proposal for these towers. To assume that a rejection of this one project somehow negates all the other construction over the past decade plus is to over-inflate its importance.

 

[skyrise]

The point is that you chided adma for a supposed either/or scenario, then engaged in one yourself. Fifty years ago is fifty years ago, and suggesting that one rejected building today will send Toronto onto to some road to mediocrity or stasis is overly dramatic. Many things contribute to the progress of a city, not just the proposal for these towers. To assume that a rejection of this one project somehow negates all the other construction over the past decade plus is to over-inflate its importance.

Utter nonsense. You clearly misunderstood my post. The point is that Toronto is a city that is progressive and Adma is deluded in his failure to acknowledge that progressive cities change and not everything can be saved. I can guarantee you that if Buffalo had the fortune to have a project like this proposed in place of existing warehouse area, there would have been some "heritage" buildings lost in the process.

The fact he used 80 Bloor Street as an example comparing it to New York is laughable. New York has sacrificed many buildings in the name of progress and has a very similar project underway as we speak.

Some people are capable of enjoying both historical and modern aspects of a city you know an "and" rather than an "either/or" scenario. The incessant need by the resident self appointed "urbanistas" to dismiss anyone who supports this project as an uneducated yokel fanboy is tiresome.

As for sending Toronto onto some road to mediocrity, I never stated that. (You and your ilk are clearly overly presumptuous when sizing up forumers you disagree with). What I have said all along is this project will elevate the current quality of architecture in the city and rise above the current state of mediocre development that is plaguing the city.

If you believe otherwise, you are as ill-informed and delusional as Adma, and should join him in Buffalo.

 

[buildup]

But, you know what--in *actually* visiting, say, NYC, you sound like the kind of person who'd be absolutely, airheadedly, disinterestedly, ignorant in taking in the comprehensive warts-and-all urban fabric that *pre-dates* the 21st century. Even though such "taking-in" might actually be a more sophisticated and altogether satisfying and worthy-of-NYC way of beholding NYC than simply concentrating on the ooh! aah! ultracontemporary.

As I said in the 80 Bloor thread: rather than regretting how Toronto lacks the architecturally spectacular, it might actually be a disarmingly richer thing to nurture a well-informed ability to appreciate NYC's rough equivalents to the existing "unspectacular" 80 Bloor.

Another way of looking at it--try to channel the Lou Reed-ness of NYC, rather than ignorantly dismissing him as a dead 71-year-old man.

There goes adma with his trademark sophistry. You continue to conflate these banal warehouses and 1980s theatres with vital, semi-intact, pre-21st century urban fabric. Its nothing of the sort! King West of Spadina has those zones, as does Queen East, Front etc - agreed. But the strip in question is just not compelling. M-Gs plan for our Entertainment Zone is vastly more entertaining than anything there right now. This whole debate is beyond surreal, I cannot imagine any other city responding in such a neurotic way to such an exhilerating concept.

To cap it off, Keesmatt's wringing of her hands, worry that not everything might turn out as advertised... Ah, the uncertainty of life! Well Ms. Kessmat throw yourself behind this and make it happen - that's your Job. Your job isn't to sit by sounding like a skeptic.

And no-one needs endless lectures about the NYCs historic hoods & bathhouses. Of course they are fascinating! But there's room for Old and New.

 

[isaidso]

Why? Their job is to follow the rules. If you don't like the rules, then ask council to make new ones.

Blindly following some rule book is idiotic at best. Common sense would dictate that rules be updated to dovetail with the city's growth, not hinder it. And yes, some of those staffers need to be fired. When a proposal comes along that's obviously a huge win for the city they should be targeting the regulation that's preventing it, not preventing the city from benefiting from the proposal.

 

[yyzer]

Blindly following some rule book is idiotic at best. Common sense would dictate that rules be updated to dovetail with the city's growth, not hinder it. And yes, some of those staffers need to be fired. When a proposal comes along that's obviously a huge win for the city they should be targeting the regulation that's preventing it, not preventing the city from benefiting from the proposal.

+1000000