Automation Gallery said:
LoL, according to gristle everytime a tall tower in Toronto is proposed, its not reflecting the precinct of the area and breaking the planning guidelines.
With over 200 cranes in the sky and 25 tall bldg. proposals of over 200 meters, its time to amend that...unless of course, they (city) just want to keep making backroom deals, and milking developers for the exchange of increased density.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with milking money from developers? It's not like these guys aren't making any money. The city is being starved for cash and if you haven't noticed, our infrastructure and public realm is in pretty bad shape. Developers put up huge condos that require new infrustructure at great expense, yet they aren't the ones paying it. I think they should be required to pay a whole lot more, to cover all the costs we have to pay for their massive developments.
 
innsertnamehere said:
that's because it is highrise surrounded by lowrise. this site is most certainly not surrounded by 7-8 floor buildings.
Click to expand...

I never said anything about this site. I'm just questioning johnwood's aesthetic philosophy. Height can be nice, but it can also go terribly wrong. Just look at the tallest structure bordering the Grange Park (hint: it's not OCAD or the AGO).
 
I guess I should be saying that height on its own is a failure, but height "together" just looks damn impressive. All you really need is 5-6 buildings with considerable height to really make it work. Similarly, low rise can go horribly wrong. The huge convention centres eating up blocks of American downtowns come to mind here. (You see, I can pick buildings that have no real relation to the context too!)
 
Silence&Motion said:
I never said anything about this site. I'm just questioning johnwood's aesthetic philosophy. Height can be nice, but it can also go terribly wrong. Just look at the tallest structure bordering the Grange Park (hint: it's not OCAD or the AGO).
Click to expand...

And also, Yamasaki's WTC in NYC (and no, "go terribly wrong" has nothing to do with 9/11 there: it's about the original scheme). Not to mention my persistent idee fixe, the current second tallest building in the world (think: Mecca, clock tower, etc)
 
Torontovibe said:
our infrastructure and public realm is in pretty bad shape. Developers put up huge condos that require new infrustructure at great expense, yet they aren't the ones paying it. I think they should be required to pay a whole lot more, to cover all the costs we have to pay for their massive developments.
Click to expand...

Yeah i agree, but then again the city is sitting on millions and millions of dollars of Section-37 money from developers...whats up with that,
They're to blame for not using it properly...Shame:eek:
 
They are sitting on $20 million because it costs $35 to buy parkland.

The section 37 money is certianly being used, on items such as:

Simcoe street off ramp relocation
Park in place of the old off ramp
College park renovation
June call wood park
York street pedestrian bridge (this is eating up around $100 million in section 37 funds)

That's just the current projects I can think of off the top of my head, I'm sure there are many more.
 
The Skywalk replacement costs $100 million? That's insane.

I would believe $100 million for the Northwest PATH.. aren't bridges supposed to be less expensive??!
 
Automation Gallery said:
LoL, according to gristle everytime a tall tower in Toronto is proposed, its not reflecting the precinct of the area and breaking the planning guidelines.
With over 200 cranes in the sky and 25 tall bldg. proposals of over 200 meters, its time to amend that...unless of course, they (city) just want to keep making backroom deals, and milking developers for the exchange of increased density.
Click to expand...

No Automation Gallery, it isn't according to gristle, it's according to your incapacity to read other people's posts, and your shallow efforts to misquote them. With the exception of these three proposed structures, the others lie outside of the King-Spadina planning area (to which I was making specific reference to). But as you neither know nor care about these things, it's just best to allow you to drool out your inaccuracies.

As for "milking" developers, my guess is that you are referring to Section 37 of the Provincial Planning Act (read that again so it sinks in: the Provincial Planning Act. You can look up the details for yourself (you and your friend, the idiot mayor, who also is misinformed on these things).

You might learn something in the process.

Might.
 
Automation Gallery said:
...unless of course, they (city) just want to keep making backroom deals, and milking developers for the exchange of increased density.
Click to expand...

Yeah, developers are really paying through the nose to make the city a better place for everyone. The public is really ripping off those private developers bigtime!!! /sarcasm

It's ironic you refer to Section 37 stuff as "backroom deals" when it's an actual planning policy whereas the term "backroom deals" generally refers to the city being in cahoots with developers...

Should the city just bend over and take it from developers and not have policies in place that improve the city? Or should it just be a free-for-all for developers to build all the height and density they want with no improvements to the public realm?

Just some things for you to think about, AG, all though I know you won't because it's easier to be a height fanboy than to challenge yourself and your do-anything-for-more-buildings value system.

(Cue AG victimizing himself and portraying developers as victims and the rest of us as of unbalanced, height-hating, developer-hating people... which is odd because I've happily worked for a developer in addition to being pro-development a majority of the time in my life.)
 
Last edited:
^*psssst!* Twitfilter--it really works. (Excepts when people quote the twits--so, people, stop quoting the twits. Thanks in advance)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top