ADRM said:
Big fan of housing crises, eh?
Click to expand...
No more than say while I'm critical of the Sally Ann, doesn't mean I'm pro-poverty. Or that I have issues with PETA, doesn't I'm all for cruelty to animals. So unless this person said specifically, "I'm for housing crises, go me!" it is unlikely the reason why this person is supportive of Council's decision here, for right or wrong.

I think there is also danger of conflating housing issues with aesthetics. As from my position, they are two separate issues. And have always been so.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
No more than say while I'm critical of the Sally Ann, doesn't mean I'm pro-poverty. Or that I have issues with PETA, doesn't I'm all for cruelty to animals. So unless this person said specifically, "I'm for housing crises, go me!" it is unlikely the reason why this person is supportive of Council's decision here, for right or wrong.

I think there is also danger of conflating housing issues with aesthetics. As from my position, they are two separate issues. And have always been so.
Click to expand...

Just to note here, Council has not taken any decision as yet.

This is merely a preliminary report.

Though the tone of said report does lead one to think this may be heading to the OLT, but that conclusion is as yet premature.
 
Northern Light said:
Just to note here, Council has not taken any decision as yet.

This is merely a preliminary report.

Though the tone of said report does lead one to think this may be heading to the OLT, but that conclusion is as yet premature.
Click to expand...
Fair enough! And thank you for clarifying that. /bows
 
SPA filed:

1651300772706.png


Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca
 
I'd argue I'm one of the biggest proponents of heritage preservation, something Toronto has dearly little of.

I don't want all the houses to see the wrecking ball here, but there are thousands of similar streets, in gorgeous neighbourhoods, with large old trees and victorian era housing scattered throughout Toronto's suburbs. With that in mind, I don't feel it particularly pertinent to save a portion of a street that has one small nice stretch, when it is literally in the heart of downtown of the third largest city in North America.
 
Last edited:
This one was appealed to the OLT by the applicant back in July.

An Appeal Report (formerly the Request for Direction Report) is headed to the next meeting of TEYCC seeking to oppose this at OLT:


From the above:

1673882276007.png

1673882293110.png


1673882328165.png

1673882366030.png

1673882401565.png


Comments: The report is softer, I think, than one might expect. The City, I think (my opinion only) is open to redesignating from neighbourhoods here.

When I read this, there is some concern over height (due to shadow)........but I think it seems like the big issues here will revolve around heritage preservation and parkland, and both seem solvable to me.
 
I know don't shoot the messenger... but I'm kinda wishing you @Northern Light were on vacation today somewhere without cell service.

It'll take weeks to recover from the Planning bloodshed reported today. ;)
 
Soooo, I was waiting on @DSC to share the news on this one in thread...........but apparently he decided to keep it secret, LOL

Too bad, I'm in a mood for spoilers.

This one has a report going before Preservation Board with a host a designations on this site.


When one reads the background report, I would infer a settlement has been reached ( but note I have not confirmed that).

There are, however new plans in the report, which have been agreed to by the proponent and the City.

Here's the new Site Plan:

1701358744190.png


Of note for @Art Tsai the height has changed, we're now at 63s for the taller tower (+4s) the shorter tower has jumped 10s to 58s

The park is now slightly larger and shifted a bit to the east; a definite improvement.

This is the old site plan for comparison:

1701358931730.png
 
I guess I am warming up to this project, since they're not demonstrating nuking the entire block as I was unreasonably fearing and as Northern Light-san pointed out to me earlier. There is still quite a bit of elder structures will be effected here...but from the planning schematics above, not nearly as bad as I thought. And there is at least some semblance of keeping the original character of that block intact, despite them putting two gignormous residential towers on top of it all...

...although, they're setback far enough they could be /ignored in theory when traversing on the adjacent sidewalks. And so much so, they really should be called backyard towers or the way taller approach to lane way housing, goodness!
 
Art Tsai said:
The overall storey count changed from 59 and 48 to 63 and 58. The height hasn't been updated since the pdf attached by @Northern Light is too blurry for me to read.
Click to expand...

Hold on.......what's blurry?

It reads very clearly. Are you sure you were wearing the right pair of glasses?

That said, it doesn't have all the other info in it that Arch. or Planning Docs would have, because its a heritage report, and that really isn't of interest to the preservation folks.
 
Northern Light said:
Hold on.......what's blurry?

It reads very clearly. Are you sure you were wearing the right pair of glasses?

That said, it doesn't have all the other info in it that Arch. or Planning Docs would have, because its a heritage report, and that really isn't of interest to the preservation folks.
Click to expand...
im talking about the new height number which if you look at the doc the height displayed in meters is not clear...
 
Art Tsai said:
im talking about the new height number which if you look at the doc the height displayed in meters is not clear...
Click to expand...

I see the diagrams you're talking about; yeah, they don't enlarge/zoom well.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top