Just a reminder that on Tuesday the community council debates whether to challenge Mirvish at the OMB. You can email council to let them know where you stand on this important project. A few pages back I posted an email template that you can use for this purpose. If you use this template your comments will be added to the official record and will be considered in council's deliberations!

The following is the suggested email format. Simply cut and paste into your email program:

Group email address:

teycc@toronto.ca (teycc@toronto.ca); councillor_perks@toronto.ca (councillor_perks@toronto.ca); councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca (councillor_fletcher@toronto.ca); councillor_bailao@toronto.ca (councillor_bailao@toronto.ca); councillor_davis@toronto.ca (councillor_davis@toronto.ca); councillor_fragedakis@toronto.ca (councillor_fragedakis@toronto.ca); councillor_layton@toronto.ca (councillor_layton@toronto.ca); councillor_matlow@toronto.ca (councillor_matlow@toronto.ca); councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca (councillor_mcconnell@toronto.ca); councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca (councillor_mcmahon@toronto.ca); councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca (councillor_mihevc@toronto.ca); councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca (councillor_vaughan@toronto.ca); councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca (councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca)
Click to expand...


Subject Line:
My comments for 2013.TE28.2 on November 19, 2013 Toronto and East York Community Council
Click to expand...
‏
Body of the email:
To the City Clerk:

Please add my comments to the agenda for the November 19, 2013 Toronto and East York Community Council meeting on item 2013.TE28.2, Request for Direction - 266-270 King Street West and 274-322 King Street West - Zoning Amendment Application

I understand that my comments and the personal information in this email will form part of the public record and that my name will be listed as a correspondent on agendas and minutes of City Council or its committees. Also, I understand that agendas and minutes are posted online and my name may be indexed by search engines like Google.

Comments:
Click to expand...
 
adma said:
Except that technically, what I'd interpret as the "reactive activism" you're decrying actually pre-dated the Concourse crisis
Click to expand...

Reactive activism isn't static. Every failure in the regular heritage preservation system fuels the fire and further agitates the activists. I'd say the loss of the Concourse Building was a significant failure in the city's heritage preservation system.

In fact, I'd rather invert your argument--that is, rather than a trigger for "reactive activism", the Concourse demolition proposal actually marked a turn away from 80s/90s-style timid clingy reactivism; and as such, ushered in the era in which Mirvish/Gehry schemes were possible...
Click to expand...

Reactive activism isn't only concerned with protesting. The fact that these warehouses were even listed in the heritage directory is, in my opinion, reactive activism. Also, I'm not sure why you're equating a mere proposal to something that is actually achievable in reality. That's a poor measure of the state of heritage preservation, especially when taking into consideration that the city and planning department have largely opposed the M-G plan thus far.

Even if you take the stance that these warehouses are worthy of heritage listing; should the potential replacement really play no factor in whether or not that listing is upheld? There's a huge difference between the M-G proposal and a pair of 300 Front/Cinema Tower clones.
 
Last edited:
DtTO said:
Reactive activism isn't static. Every failure in the regular heritage preservation system fuels the fire and further agitates the activists. I'd say the loss of the Concourse Building was a significant failure in the city's heritage preservation system.
Click to expand...

But you were framing it like it was either the first, or a critical trigger--it wasn't. Here's late 80s proof that "reactive activism" had its effect long before


And besides, knowing your pattern to date, I'm not so certain you'd be speaking of the Concourse in such terms were it not "presented to you" in such terms--after all, it's a little more "complicated" than a loss, given how the shell and other critical elements are to be resurrected, maybe *harrumph* shinier and happier than they've been in decades (so they promise *harrumph* *harrumph*). Indeed, I'd argue that the loss-vs-gain counterbalance here (and the corresponding contentiousness) isn't all that different from the Mirvish/Gehry situation.

Reactive activism isn't only concerned with protesting. The fact that these warehouses were even listed in the heritage directory is, in my opinion, reactive activism.
Click to expand...

And even if designated only relatively recently, they were listed going back to the 70s and 80s. That is, the "failures in the system" were in the absence of such a system until the early 70s. There came to be a veritable industry in lamenting "Lost Toronto" in those years--that's what "agitated the activists" going back to the Crombie/Sewell era, if not further...
 
Peepers said:
Just a reminder that on Tuesday the community council debates whether to challenge Mirvish at the OMB.
Click to expand...

If the community council decides not to challenge Mirvish at the OMB, does that mean that this project will have approval to go ahead? I'm not too familiar with this process.
 
Last edited:
it still has to go to main council I think?
 
There is a motion proposed from Cllr Vaughan to forward to Council with no recommendation and for staff to work with Ward Councillor and developer to develop settlement for Dec council meeting.
 
waterloowarrior said:
live tweeting of mtg
https://twitter.com/HiMYSYeD
Click to expand...

Thanks for your updates on this and other projects. Key tweet:

#TOcouncil @m_layton gets Devine to confirm ONLY 70 Parking spots for 2,800 NEW Condo units! #topoli
Click to expand...

Mike Layton also said something about the park not being able to handle as many dogs of the development were to pass as is

I42 and co, front page story coming?
 
Southcore said:
Thanks for your updates on this and other projects. Key tweet:



Mike Layton also said something about the park not being able to handle as many dogs of the development were to pass as is

I42 and co, front page story coming?
Click to expand...

In my opinion this is what we need. less parking spots make sense downtown since we should be encouraging walking biking and transit where appropriate. As for the dogs it is a easy solution by making it a no animal condominium. If people don't want to buy because of the lack of parking spots or allowance for pets then they can buy plenty of other places in the city.
 
Good luck making it a no animal condo; courts have already deemed that to be unreasonable. You can have rules in place about the number, size and/or type (domestic only -- no elephants or foxes) but you can't go totally pet free.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top