and the Honest Ed's site was sold to Vancouver Shangri-La's developers, so are they going to build something on the site.
 
skyrise said:
All the better to balance out the Jacobs-cunnilingus crowd on here. :cool:
Click to expand...

Urban cunnilingus is good. That, essentially, is what the disarming ability to appreciate existing conditions is all about.

And, I *do* get this aridly vagina-free vibe of either young boys w/undropped testicles, or older boys w/visions of Tom Of Finland urban utopia, in some of these progress-or-stagnate arguments...
 
Edward said:
There are others here that can speak to this better than I can but the planning staff have no option but to oppose. The application is for something that is not allowed in the current zoning. The only people that can change the zoning are city council. To expect the planning staff to do anything but refuse is ludicrous. They examine the proposal based on the current zoning and then recommend to council whether the proposal fits the criteria or not. If it doesn't they recommend refusal. Blame council if this ultimately gets refused.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily true. The planning dept. has already approved a couple dozen towers that do not conform to the official plan in this area. All the proposed and under construction towers in the ED exceed the established height and density requirements in their respective lots. The planning depts. responsibility is to make recommendations for planning and zoning to council for their approval or refusal not the other way around. So technically council has the final say on all developments and can refuse a project the planning dept. has approved or visa versa.

95% of the concerns raised in their refusal report for the Mirvish/Gehry project have no credibility because they did not address these concerns with all of the other projects they approved. They really only have three main points of contention: Height, density and heritage that the OMB will even consider. All the other arguments are on the planning dept. and their failure to address these issues (crowding, green space, services, transit). Those issue are the responsibility of the Planning Dept. to solve and this refusal report only highlights their failure to do their job. The OMB will see through this.

As for the height overwhelming the surrounding area, one could argue that Metro Hall and the Holiday Inn (now the Hyatt) at one time overwhelmed the area. Then along came TIFF which single handily changed the nature of this area and completely overwhelmed everything in the area. Aura overwhelms its surrounding area, as does the CN Tower. Now with 27 projects in various stages, this neighborhood will rival any in the city for density and to a lesser degree height. The neighborhood has changed substantially and in no way conforms to the official plan that the planning dept. is siting in their report.

One only need look at the adjacent properties to see how weak the planning depts. arguments are and the double standard they are applying to Mirvish vs. the other projects already approved. Read the report then take a look at the Cinema tower adjacent to this site to see said double standard (height and density not withstanding).


Edward said:
London's been doing pretty good in recent decades without having to do anything drastic with their older buildings.
Click to expand...

London's built form was fully established long before any NA cities (and largely rebuilt post WWII following the blitzkriegs) Its an apples to oranges comparison.
 
Last edited:
skyrise said:
No what I have implied is if one does not favour change or progress, one should aspire to live in a non progressive, stagnant city like Buffalo, a city that peaked 50 years ago. Buffalo's stock of historical buildings exist due to lack of growth, not preservation. Toronto came into its own 50 years ago and made sacrifices to move forward and grow. Had we not made said sacrifices and refused to grow, then yes we would be like Buffalo.

We are currently experiencing unprecedented growth, and the city is clearly struggling to comes to terms with this. This project, more than any other is symbolic of a planning dept., city counsel, and some forumers refusal to accept the reality of the situation.

Reading through the City's OMB refusal report really highlights how out to lunch the planning dept. and city is. They are clinging to a master plan that no longer applies and even acknowledge this in their report. They speak about the current and proposed projects (sans the Mirvish proposal) adding density and potentially bringing in over 18,000 residents vs. 148, yes that is correct 148 residents that lived in the area 20 years ago.

Rather than amend planning, address issues with transit and "crowding" and work to make this neighborhood a success, they would rather site outdated planning such as the 30m height limits in the area (no longer applicable) and the skyline tapering policy (no longer applicable). Although they did conduct a study of the area after approving over 20 projects that differ dramatically from the original master plan in this area.

City of Toronto Planning Dept. what is your plan to address the potential 18,000 residents moving into the neighborhood? What is your plan to address transit issues? What is your plan to address the lack of Hydro and infrastructure? What is your plan to address the lack of community services and schools? What is your plan to address the lack of green space? You have over 18,000 residents moving into this area in the next 7 to 10 years.

Denying this project and making it the scapegoat for your short-sightedness and lack of adaptably does not solve any of the issues you sighted in your refusal report. Do you believe that by denying this project that these issues will magically disappear?

Like I have said umpteen times, Ms. Keesmaat and company, time for some vision and leadership here. Time to get your head out of the sand and take responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof). This applies to Mr. Vaughn and company at city counsel as well, as they are equally responsible for this fiasco.
Click to expand...

It's comical to watch you argue for trashing the city's plan solely in support of your favourite proposal. That's all you are doing here. It's equally amusing to watch you conflate support for this single proposal as indicative of being in favour or in opposition to all development overall. Were you at any of the public meetings on this topic? Did you hear the complex range of concerns? The worries over loss or heritage? The calls for supporting this development? It's a little more interesting than your overwrought doom and gloom "rejection of this is a fiasco" synopsis.

As it stands, you did invoke an either/or scenario, one that is rather shallow in content. Toronto will hardly suffer the fate of Buffalo as you opine because the de-instrialization of the city has already occurred - as it did in Buffalo. Toronto has evolved, changed and adapted. That's one reason why people are moving back into the city. That's why you see the incredible level of development all around downtown. Your scenario of any rejection of M&G being a symbol of city decline is melodramatic to say the least.

By the way, I've never mentioned in any of my posts whether I like or dislike M&G, but that hasn't stopped you from taking on a steamroller fanboy stance and assuming that I must automatically be opposed to it. It's just one more indicator that you've put on blinders on this particular topic.

In light of the immense level of development in this city, Mirvish-Gehery is hardly do or die for the city. Try to get some perspective.
 
The city trashed their own plan a long time ago. Cleary you haven't read the official plan and how none of the approved developments conform to this. To me this is about elevating the architecture in a city stuck in a 60's modernist conservative rut with its, as you so aptly put it "immense level of development".

This project is the most substantial development since the TD Center and will have a dramatic effect on the future of the city and how it evolves. If you can't see that, then clearly it is you who has the "blinders" on

Go back and carefully read my posts again. I never inferred that Toronto would turn out to be like Buffalo or wasn't progressive, quite the opposite. Nor did I question whether you were for or against this project or say the city was in decline. You have made your own inferences here and have taken most of what I have said out of context.
 
skyrise:

The city trashed their own plan a long time ago. Cleary you haven't read the official plan and how none of the approved developments conform to this.
Click to expand...

I think you are confounding "the city" - as represented by decisions by council and City of Toronto Planning Department, which does not have the luxury of recommending approval of projects that deviates grossly beyond the OP on the basis of the superiority of the architecture. The approval of this project, given the stakes, should have always been read as a political decision.

AoD
 
Alvin I get that. TIFF is a prime example of a "political" decision to ignore the existing zoning and approve a project that does not conform to the official plan. I also understand that the planning dept. is using the TIFF precedent when looking at each proposal and this is why the other 20 plus odd developments will/have moved forward to council with the planning depts. recommendation for approval even though none of said developments conform to the current planning/zoning.

I am just pointing out the irony and double standards here. This one will rest in the hands of council not doubt about that.
 
Last edited:
adma said:
Urban cunnilingus is good. That, essentially, is what the disarming ability to appreciate existing conditions is all about.

And, I *do* get this aridly vagina-free vibe of either young boys w/undropped testicles, or older boys w/visions of Tom Of Finland urban utopia, in some of these progress-or-stagnate arguments...
Click to expand...

We at UT are aware of your tender age. We know that as a young fella these types of titillating descriptions are hard to avoid, but you have to try. Please respond and let us all know that you'll take this into consideration. :p
 
Last edited:
E.B. said:
We at UT are aware of your tender age. We know that as a young fella these types of titillating descriptions are hard to avoid, but you have to try. Please respond and let us all know that you'll take this into consideration. :p
Click to expand...

Well, it was bizarre coincidence re the goings-on at City Hall within an hour of my post (though at least, unlike you-know-who, I refrained from cruder vernacular euphemisms). Come to think of it, this post dovetails a bit into my argument.

But, look at it this way, skyrises of the world. You seem awfully concerned w/new construction. Yet you also seem to be disconcertingly unconcerned/disinterested re old construction; almost to the point where overengaging to it is a formula for "stagnation".

So, let's take another example--like, this thread.

Capture10s.JPG


Here, we're dealing w/a building that's under threat of redevelopment. Within a "skyrise" universe, all the niggling would be over the quality of its replacement. But what I'm arguing is that a healthier and even more "progressive" approach to beholding urbanity would be to have some constructive regard for what already exists. Which I'd rather advance as a "preemptive" argument than a "save" argument--though yes, I realize (and even welcome the fact) that the former can feed and nurture the latter.

*That's* what makes cities and built environment endlessly interesting and fascinating: the years, decades, and centuries of depth and density and "readability". And, stagnant, schmagnant; it's the perfect approach t/w "redeeming" the Buffalos and Hamiltons of the world (remember: their suffering isn't merely lack of development, it's through the underdeveloped ability to "read oneself").
 
You being just a young fella at a tender age was the point.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top