thats weird. when a tower is butchered the quality should be better because more money can be spend on each floor as compare to previous taller height.
e.g. one tower was 80 floors and if it was butchered to 60 floors. more money can be spend on the each floor. you know what I mean. but why towers in Toronto get cheap when they are butchered?
 
But as they remove floors, they sell fewer units, with fewer units there is less money that they can spend on the project, so they aren't suddenly going to spend more per unit just because they have fewer floors to build.
 
Is this happening :confused::confused:


ChesterCopperpot said:
From Adam Vaughan's website

Public Forum on Proposed Mirvish-Gehry Development

Date: February 18 2014
Time: 6:00 - 9:00 pm
Location: Toronto City Hall, 100 Queen St W, Committee Room

In December 2013, City Council supported my motion to attend the OMB to oppose the appeal filed by the applicant on the Mirvish-Gehry development proposal on King St W as it currently stands. It also endorsed my proposal to form a stakeholder working group to review the application and alternative approaches to the site.

This Working Group had its first meeting this week and is embarking on an intensive schedule of meetings to review this project. The findings of the Working Group will be reported by the Chief Planner to City Council by March 20, 2014, with any recommendations that may emerge from this process.

As part of the Working Group process, at least one additional public consultation will be held to obtain community feedback.

Join Councillor Vaughan, the applicant, and members of the Working Group at a public consultation on Tuesday February 18.
Click to expand...
 
I don't expect anything substantial to come out of tomorrow's Council Meeting. There may be some updates, like "we've had x number of meetings with various agreements and disagreements with the applicant", but for the most part I expect Council to adopt the Community Council recommendations (that adopted the February 20, 2014 staff report recommendations without amendments) and have Planning continue to prepare a report on the results of the working group for the May 6, 2014 City Council meeting. Basically, the public will find the results of the working group in a month or so, I suspect.
 
Regardless of the outcome, I'm not liking the lack of public information. We were promised at least one public meeting before Match 20, the original date it was to be sent to City Council. I appreciate Adam Vaughan getting the stakeholders in the room to iron out their differences, but it's wrong for the entire process to be clouded in secrecy.
 
At the December Council meeting where the working group was approved, one public meeting was included as part of the work plan for the group, but there wasn't any end date given when that meeting was to take place, so it could still happen, probably before the Staff Report for the May 6th Council meeting is complete.

In any case, a new March 14, 2014 Staff Report has just been posted. An Official Plan Amendment is required to permit the proposal, and as such there will be another statutory public meeting in relation to the OPA.
 
I'm having trouble understanding how much time is being wasted, so, basically by May 6th about six more months will have ben consumed by Vaughan's working group. Seriously, this could've been hammered out in one week.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top