Item now held at Community Council as K W-T in a huddle with MOD and Planning staff.
Held until 1 PM so that Heritage staff can get to the chambers.
CN Tower
Banned
Maybe the concept of ZONING eludes your senses. The financial district is a zone of high density commerical/office development. This area is not a zone of high density residential development. If a developer wants it to be he needs to play by the rules something that the Planning Dept (and myself) clearly believes that MOD & Co. aren't doing.
As far as Allied is concerned, gimme a break! If MOD gets 25x coverage for their site you really think that they are going to just concede that enormous potential windfall on their property? And for what? Forget it. If they do their management team should be fired.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Ohh please:, play by the rules
such cut-throat.........You have no idea of what the planning dept has in mind with the developer, lets wait for the final decision
Anyways, hoping council realizes this is a great development for this location and approves it
brockm
Active Member
I'll be honest: for the most part, the concept of zoning does, in fact, elude my senses.
City planners declaring that "people live here, people work there" was actually one of the great travesties of the 20th century North America. The blame is often almost entirely put on the automotive lobby by many left-leaning urbanists. But that point concedes that there should have be such planning power by municipalities to begin with.
Whenever I try to have this argument however, someone inevitably brings up the scary prospect of a toxic waste facility in Rosedale. Which is silly in that it shows that many urbanists have absolutely no grasp of the land economics or some of the completely sensible things that can be done (that don't require zoning restrictions) to prevent this from happening if, in the unlikely case, John and Son's Nuclear Waste Disposal Co. decided to setup in The Beach -- hint: Law of Rent.
Okay, so, Gary Switzer just deputed to the Community Council…
and then I did, to let Council know what UrbanToronto thinks about this (and I didn't say you all like it, just nearly all of you)
and Kristyn Wong-Tam has just told the Council that this is a "very good proposal for the city", and…
she has asked for a deferral of the final vote until May 14 when the Section 37 package has been worked out…
and Passed.
42
and then I did, to let Council know what UrbanToronto thinks about this (and I didn't say you all like it, just nearly all of you)
and Kristyn Wong-Tam has just told the Council that this is a "very good proposal for the city", and…
she has asked for a deferral of the final vote until May 14 when the Section 37 package has been worked out…
and Passed.
42
Last edited:
This means that City Council does want this to go through. Discussion will continue for the next couple of months to establish Section 37 commitments and any other details not nailed down yet.
Rest a little easier everyone!
42
Rest a little easier everyone!
42
Ramako
Moderator
Three cheers for Ms. Wong-Tam!
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Great news. For an anti-development Councillor KWT has really done an about turn today
fedplanner
Active Member
Hurray!! Thanks for the updates interchange!
Some of us owe KWT an apology. (Myself included)
Ramako
Moderator
Kudos to you as well interchange, for taking time out of your day to voice the sentiment of the community on this board.
I love UT's potential as an agent for encouraging good design in Toronto, rather than being a mere peanut gallery. Embarrassingly, today was the first time that I've ever contacted a politician about any issue.
I love UT's potential as an agent for encouraging good design in Toronto, rather than being a mere peanut gallery. Embarrassingly, today was the first time that I've ever contacted a politician about any issue.
cassius
Active Member
Agreed, but I also feel that we need to be careful with that as there are a large number of skyscraper fans on here that seem to care for nothing other than the height of the building. Certainly not everyone, but I'd say they're in the majority here. Used to be one myself and still love me a tall and sexy building, but there's so much more than the size that matters.
As long as we're somehow able to summarize from a variety of viewpoints I think UT can contribute significantly.
taal
Senior Member
It makes you wonder if the developer is told behind the scenes the outcome ... as people have theorized a lot of money was already spent on this project from the developer.
Maybe something like "yea there will be some contention but we'll work it out with the section 37 package *wink wink*
Seriously wouldn't surprise me.
Maybe something like "yea there will be some contention but we'll work it out with the section 37 package *wink wink*
Seriously wouldn't surprise me.
Ramako
Moderator
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happens, and further that it isn't a secret. Developers often meet with both planners and councilors prior to filing their application in order to get a sense of what kinds of developments are generally acceptable for the site in question and what the issues will be ultimately navigable. As a former planner, I have no doubt that Gary Switzer was aware of the setback issue long before making the application.
Ramako
Moderator
Agreed, but I also feel that we need to be careful with that as there are a large number of skyscraper fans on here that seem to care for nothing other than the height of the building. Certainly not everyone, but I'd say they're in the majority here. Used to be one myself and still love me a tall and sexy building, but there's so much more than the size that matters.
You don't see the kind groundswell of support that Massey Tower has just experienced with other projects that offer little other than being tall. I think that even on UT, it takes a really special project to motivate the board as a whole. Massey Tower was one of those really rare projects that made almost everybody happy.