This is way off topic, but I would love to get a better understanding of this.

Interchange, your full time job is UT right? Exactly how big is the UT office employee wise? I am under the understanding that at least you and "Edward skira" are full tie employees, with somemidtowner also working there?? I would love to get to know exactly who on these boards are employed by them, and I have been wondering for quite some time. Maybe a separate post in the off topic discussion boards would best fit this rather than here.

It won't take a whole thread to answer, so I'll just do it quickly here:

There are four of us full time at UT, including Edward Skira and his wife who are the owners of the site. There are a couple more who contracted for various occasional duties, and a number of freelancers and interns. sMT is one of our freelancers. We are always interested in hearing from those who would like to intern or freelance with us. In terms of the forum Ed and I also moderate of course, and there are 5 more on that team including AlvinofDiaspar, ShonTron, CDL.TO, Jason Paris, and Canuck. We will be adding more moderators in the future!

42
 
Thanks, 42....you know, from today's events, there may be a possibility that UT could morph into something more than just an online forum...we could end up being a force of some reckoning, for urban change in the GTA......

//// just a thought...once again, congrats on today.....
 
The lights stay on...

photo.jpg
 
Last edited:
This news is really pleasing. There is a fair degree of sophistication to this proposal and I'm hoping that it sees the light of day as presented. Congrats all around.
 
It also warms my heart to see UT moving from being a internet forum for enthusiasts, to a potentially influential group in the city's development.

Yes there is a lot of bickering and nit-picking on the forums, but everyone who contributes here certainly has a passion for development and growth of the city. Keep up the good work everyone.
 
Good stuff UT. Glad to see all the time I spend here actually counts for something in the way our city is being shaped. Look forward to Massey adding significantly to this strip of Yonge that really needs it.
 
Wong-Tam is only "anti-development" when compared to her predecessor, Kyle Rae, who was by far the most pro-development councillor in the city.

Yeah, don't chalk up to something else which is better explained by political expediency. The fact is, there was nothing in it for Wong-Tam to oppose this development as everyone except the planning department was enthusiastic about it. But if there had been any serious constituency of residents with the placards out, you can bet Wong-Tam would have locked onto that angst and been its proud conduit.
 
Yeah, don't chalk up to something else which is better explained by political expediency. The fact is, there was nothing in it for Wong-Tam to oppose this development as everyone except the planning department was enthusiastic about it. But if there had been any serious constituency of residents with the placards out, you can bet Wong-Tam would have locked onto that angst and been its proud conduit.

Isn't that the point of being a councillor? Representing your constituents?
 
Isn't that the point of being a councillor? Representing your constituents?


Yes, but....

I suspect BrockM and I would agree on almost nothing in the realm of politics or ideology, but we might well agree on the fundamental duty of a representative of the people. The classic statement is that of English Member of Parliament, Edmund Burke, to the electors of Bristol in 1774. It is a marvellous speech as a whole but perhaps the key line is:

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

Note: this is not an indirect slam at K W-T. I do not know enough of her to have an established opinion.
 
Isn't that the point of being a councillor? Representing your constituents?

Sure, but this is where I would suggest the bad side of democracy comes into play. When a local councillor stops development because it makes local constituents angry, this isn't necessarily a win for everyone. There's a thing called externalities.

- When a property owner is told they can't build something, that's a loss of freedom for the property owner.

- When rent prices go up in an area because supply is suppressed by anti-development forces, that's a loss of freedom for the middle-class or the poor.

- On that last point, the more density is controlled, the more sprawl there will be, and the more pollution we'll all breathe, the more traffic we'll all waste billions of dollars of productivity waiting in, etc.

For these reasons, if a politician opposes developments even if and only your constituents do, you're effectively anti-development. Indeed, that politician becomes a tool by which all those externalities are realized.

Of course, there's externalities for building tall and dense too:

- Shadows
- More pedestrian traffic
- More transit uses

But I think these externalities (which are the ones that NIMBYs complain about) are far better problems to have then the ones that are realized when densification is attenuated.
 
The City site says the following were adopted: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.TE22.6

The Toronto and East York Community Council recommends that:

1. City Council authorize the City Clerk to provide notice of a statutory public meeting for the property municipally known as 197 to 201 Yonge Street (the Site) as well as the property municipally known as 15 Shuter Street, 178 and 180 Victoria (the Existing Massey Hall Lands) to be scheduled for the May 14, 2013 meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council, as per the requirements of the Planning Act.

2. City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to submit to the May 14, 2013 meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council a further report for the Site and the Existing Massey Hall Lands, which includes draft implementing Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments in a form which provides for:

a. the development of the Site (the Development), substantially as proposed by the Owner of the Site based on the most recent site plan submitted, dated November 8, 2012; and
b. the development substantially as proposed by Massey Hall based on its site plan application filed with the City on October 2, 2013 (the "Massey Hall Development"), which requires amendments to the Zoning By-law to accommodate relief for matters including but not limited to density, parking, setbacks and loading;

together with appropriate recommendations, and including requiring the owner of the Site to enter into and register a Section 37 Agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, the Chief Planner and the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services, the details of which shall be confirmed by the owner prior to the issuance of the statutory public meeting notice and including but not limited to the following:

i. an indexed payment to the City for streetscape improvements for St. Enoch's Lane, Shuter Street and Victoria Street;
ii. provide, prior to the issuance of the first above grade building permit, a public art contribution in accordance with the Percent for Public Art Program for a value not less than one percent of the gross construction cost, of all buildings and structures on the lands to be paid at time of first building permit;
iii. that the owner of the Site, at their cost, convey the rear approximately 449.6 sq.m. portion of the Site directly adjacent to Massey Hall at nominal cost to the owner of Massey Hall being The Corporation of Massey Hall and Roy Thomson Hall ("Massey"), a not-for-profit charitable organization, together with appropriate easements and rights to build in a timely fashion to Massey Hall;
iv. securing of appropriate related heritage matters to the satisfaction of the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services;
v. that the owner of the Site enter into and register a Three Party Agreement on title to the Site and the Massey Hall lands, with the City and the owner of the Massey Hall lands, to secure amongst other matters, the conveyance and easement(s) to Massey Hall; to ensure the limited purpose of such conveyance and easements; a Construction Phasing Plan which provides for the construction of the owner's Development and the Massey Hall Development, and to require a Heritage Easement Agreement be entered into by the owner of Massey Hall with the City;
vi. appropriate Letters of Credit to secure matters; and
vii. such other matters as may be recommended in the further report requested.

3. City Council direct that a minimum of 131 parking spaces be provided and maintained on the site for residents and no spaces be provided for visitors at the property municipally known as 197 to 201 Yonge Street.

4. City Council direct that a minimum of 308 bicycle parking spaces for use by occupants shall be provided and maintained on the lot for the use of residents of the lot.
 
The parkette onsite has been clear-cut of its trees today.
 

Back
Top