"This building is most likely going to be the shortest building built at Yonge and Eglinton for its entire future. This area is destined for density. Did the residents just realize this or did they simply think there was NO way they could win a fight over 20 floors when there are so many other buildings in the area taller and a 60 floor condo being proposed right on the corner? Either way, many will be excited to see the Future of Yonge and Eglinton, and a few will still wish it was 1950."

"Residents had voiced concerns about the height and width of building because it blocks available sunlight. "

"The changes amounted to fixing a typo, said city lawyer Sarah O’Connor and will have no impact on the height and scale of the building."

Clear indication of subjective and inaccurate commentary. This is a forum where people come to malign fellow residents who are better informed, just as concerned about building a better city but who are unfairly marginalized as NIMBYs. A very one-sided discussion on the merits of a development proposal - no substance at all. Some people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet.
 
Patrick Smyth said:
"This building is most likely going to be the shortest building built at Yonge and Eglinton for its entire future. This area is destined for density. Did the residents just realize this or did they simply think there was NO way they could win a fight over 20 floors when there are so many other buildings in the area taller and a 60 floor condo being proposed right on the corner? Either way, many will be excited to see the Future of Yonge and Eglinton, and a few will still wish it was 1950."

"Residents had voiced concerns about the height and width of building because it blocks available sunlight. "

"The changes amounted to fixing a typo, said city lawyer Sarah O’Connor and will have no impact on the height and scale of the building."

Clear indication of subjective and inaccurate commentary. This is a forum where people come to malign fellow residents who are better informed, just as concerned about building a better city but who are unfairly marginalized as NIMBYs. A very one-sided discussion on the merits of a development proposal - no substance at all. Some people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet.
Click to expand...


I live close enough to the area to say that it needs to see some more density... I live at bathurst and eglinton and people in my area are fighting every condo proposal and the underground LRT with zeal. Im sorry but wanting to keep your neighbourhood when its sitting on a subway line low rise is simply nimbyism. Y&E will have a subway and a LRT, it cant possibly justifiably stay low rise... Condos belong with public transit.. They should be built only at the end of TTC lines but along the whole route. Last year in the star some guy was protesting a building being built at Yonge and LAwrence claiming "it was the last place in toronto you could buy without any buildings around and it should stay that way". Thats plain rediculous... So who ever was in a area first can veto anything for the rest of their lives even if what they are proposing or fighting doesnt make any sense. Anyways Toronto is growing and thats just a reality. We need to find places that tese people who move here can live... If we keep sticking them on the edges traffic keeps getting worse.. Instead it seems that the better idea is to put people in dense areas where appropriate.. Y&E fits that description no matter which way you cut it..
 
Patrick Smyth said:
Clear indication of subjective and inaccurate commentary. This is a forum where people come to malign fellow residents who are better informed, just as concerned about building a better city but who are unfairly marginalized as NIMBYs. A very one-sided discussion on the merits of a development proposal - no substance at all. Some people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet.
Click to expand...

How about you start the "substance" talk with some points on why this is innapropriate here. I would say yes some are interested in their 500 sqft and some are interested in their 2000 sqft house 200 yards from a future major transit hub. There are buildings on two sides of this development that are the same height as it is. I find it silly, (and I lived north of here on Albertus my entire life) that we can't intensify an area this close to a major future transit hub without people losing their minds. Sacre Blue, the whole area is going to shit because of a 20 storey building. Ok well if you really don't like it, wait until its built and a few others in the immidiate area, see your values go up, and then sell and move a few blocks north, least that is what I would do. Values are similar up there and you just made quite a bit of extra cash for your next range rover. If you are against this and you live in the area the development is affecting, and yet you aren't voicing concern with many other areas of the city where development is ongoing, then yes, that would actually make you the very definition of NIMBY. Not maligning you, just giving you some options you may want to consider.
 
Patrick Smyth said:
Clear indication of subjective and inaccurate commentary. This is a forum where people come to malign fellow residents who are better informed, just as concerned about building a better city but who are unfairly marginalized as NIMBYs. A very one-sided discussion on the merits of a development proposal - no substance at all. Some people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet.
Click to expand...

More like a clear indication that you don't know how forums work. If you think that there's a very one-sided discussion here then it is up to you to provide the opposition. Give us something substantial to chew on then, not vague, generalized complaints delivered with a whining tone. You're a boxer, right? Take your best shot!
 
Patrick Smyth said:
"This building is most likely going to be the shortest building built at Yonge and Eglinton for its entire future. This area is destined for density. Did the residents just realize this or did they simply think there was NO way they could win a fight over 20 floors when there are so many other buildings in the area taller and a 60 floor condo being proposed right on the corner? Either way, many will be excited to see the Future of Yonge and Eglinton, and a few will still wish it was 1950."

"Residents had voiced concerns about the height and width of building because it blocks available sunlight. "

"The changes amounted to fixing a typo, said city lawyer Sarah O’Connor and will have no impact on the height and scale of the building."

Clear indication of subjective and inaccurate commentary. This is a forum where people come to malign fellow residents who are better informed, just as concerned about building a better city but who are unfairly marginalized as NIMBYs. A very one-sided discussion on the merits of a development proposal - no substance at all. Some people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet.
Click to expand...

It's true that the vast majority of the members of this forum are unabashedly pro-development, but you're mistaken if you think that this is because we're all investors who are personally or financially involved in these developments. Most of us favour the intense height and density of city living as a matter of personal preference, whether or not we happen to live near or be invested in a particular project on which we are commenting. Therefore, I would argue that most of the opinions expressed on this forum are indeed objective, despite the fact that you may disagree with their premise. On the other hand, typically it is the local residents living in close proximity to a development whose opinions are more heavily influenced by how that particular development affects their lives directly. I would argue that their opinions tend to therefore be more subjective, and more often than not, negative.

Furthermore, there are regular members of this forum who will often state their opposition to certain developments on the grounds of excessive height or density, but those posters typically make principled arguments. They also tend to comment on a wide range of developments, even if not personally impacted by them, and will also make statements in support of some developments. Accordingly, such members are never labelled as NIMBYs. It's those members who have clearly joined the forum only to criticize one particular development that happens to affect them directly, and who have no other interest in discussing development in the city who are, rightly, labelled as NIMBYs.

Given that, in general, most members here are unopposed to typical NIMBY concerns over height and density, the majority of discussion tends to focus on design and architecture. You may be displeased that most members here are unsympathetic to your views, but this forum and its members are under no obligation to conform to your expectations of what this forum should be. This forum isn't a platform for local residents and developers to wage war against each other; that's for the public consultations.

edited to add: Just taking a quick look through your posting history, it appears that virtually every development that you've ever commented on has been somewhere in or around the Yonge & Eglinton area. In over four years of being a member of this forum, you have shown zero interest in, and have rendered no opinion on, the hundreds of other of developments that are occurring all across this city. The only developments on which you've managed to form an opinion are those around Yonge & Eglinton (presumably your "backyard"). That indicates to me that you're not really all that interested in the growth and development of the city as a whole, so much as you are merely concerned with how developments might directly impact you. It's an entirely understandable perspective, but it's also entirely subjective and it really is the stuff that NIMBYism is made of.
 
Last edited:
The NEON is an offensive building that today embarrasses the North York Community Planning Department. For almost 8 years the planners rejected any notion of a 10 times density building across the street from a 'neighbourhoods' area. It was just bad planning as supported by the policies in the OP and YE Sec Plan. Those policies spoke to the need for a less dramatic Transition and the retention of sky view, privacy and public realm. However, after the building changed hands the new owners hired one of those slick development lawyers and the planners on the case were removed/reshuffled paving the way for eventual approval. (Things have a way of happening like that in TO. A bit like how the open space at YE RioCan got closed-in.) Anyway, all of a sudden, the planners liked 17 storeys, 10 times density and no problem with the tallest building on the block being nearest the neighbourhoods area across the street. Since it appeared the fix was in, the local residents proffered a compromise that saw the building go up another 3 storeys to 20 but with a less offensive treatment at the street level. The parts the community wanted were ignored and the developer snatched the additional 3 storeys and even some of the public realm! Planning in the area is a political affair. That's not how we should be building a better city.
 
mckarisma said:
How about you start the "substance" talk with some points on why this is innapropriate here. I would say yes some are interested in their 500 sqft and some are interested in their 2000 sqft house 200 yards from a future major transit hub. There are buildings on two sides of this development that are the same height as it is. I find it silly, (and I lived north of here on Albertus my entire life) that we can't intensify an area this close to a major future transit hub without people losing their minds. Sacre Blue, the whole area is going to shit because of a 20 storey building. Ok well if you really don't like it, wait until its built and a few others in the immidiate area, see your values go up, and then sell and move a few blocks north, least that is what I would do. Values are similar up there and you just made quite a bit of extra cash for your next range rover. If you are against this and you live in the area the development is affecting, and yet you aren't voicing concern with many other areas of the city where development is ongoing, then yes, that would actually make you the very definition of NIMBY. Not maligning you, just giving you some options you may want to consider.
Click to expand...

You're the best example so far.

It's not about value, it's about what we all signed-off on when the new OP came into existence. Things like Transition, improvements to the public realm and respect for existing residents are what it was about. How this was actually handled was more like how they do things in China. I don't live near the building. And, if I had a 2000 square foot home close to a subway, and it was an OP-designated "neighbourhoods" area, I would have every right to voice concern. You would probably still see that as NIMBY. Accusations of NIMBYism are common among the selfish political class, developers and ignorant wannabe planners.
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
More like a clear indication that you don't know how forums work. If you think that there's a very one-sided discussion here then it is up to you to provide the opposition. Give us something substantial to chew on then, not vague, generalized complaints delivered with a whining tone. You're a boxer, right? Take your best shot!
Click to expand...

I don't think you have the planning heft to deal with these issues which is why you glorify tall buildings, swoon over renderings and ignore the merits of good and comprehensive planning.
 
your argument goes the other way as well. there are already 23,17, and 15 floor buildings surrounding it 2 other sides, as well as a 30 and 22 floor office complex, which has not only been approved to have an addition on top, but is already twice as tall as this. All that is within 200 meters of this. I think it is safe to say that this fits in with its context. it is 3 blocks from a subway stop. believe it or not, this fits in perfectly with city building. city building involves building high density near subway stops, and lower density elsewhere. this location is not elsewhere.

this seems like quite a nice building from a planning perspective as well, if not a architectural perspective. walk up townhomes to match the currently surrounding neighborhood of a small residental street, but at the same time it adds the density neccessary for being 300m from what will soon be the intersection of 2 subway lines.
 
Last edited:
"Most of us favour the intense height and density of city living"

Agreed, and I understand how cities need to intensify. I was a founding member of FoNTRA and currently Treasurer of CORRA. I have been a member of my community association for 17 years and represent it on planning matters. I attend meetings every month and in some months 2/3 times more. Last Saturday I participated in a Walk in search of a park in the Yonge/Eglinton area. I attend and support good planning efforts throughout this city. Despite your attempts to malign me, I am well qualified to comment on planning matters. Something few forum members do. It seems they are only interested in height, shape and style. All pretty superficial aspects of city-building. What does that make them? Pussycats, in the eyes of insensitive developers, unprofessional city staff planners and rogue councillors. You should try to develop your own opinions on NIMBYism.
 
Patrick Smyth said:
The NEON is an offensive building.
Click to expand...
It's no where near as "offensive" as the Stalinesque Brutalist monstrosities across the street from it. Those have absolutely no respect for the streetscape or pedestrians. This building will greatly soften the architecture of the area.

And, of course, this is not the only development going on in the area. Just south on Duplex, the Berwick is under construction, and it also is across the street from a single-family dwelling neighbourhood. At the northeast corner of Yonge and Eglinton, of course, E Condos has been proposed, two very large towers. RioCan wants to intensify its existing buildings at the northwest corner of Y&E, and the 7-storey building to the west of that is looking to redevelop into a much larger condo tower. And of course there is the empty TTC lot that no doubt will be built on once the Crosstown construction is completed.

There's a reason for all this development -- Y&E is a prime location, with a major transit interchange and lots of amenities for residents (great shopping, library, nearby schools, etc.). This is exactly the kind of area that should be intensified.

Let me ask you: Do you just object to the height of the building, or to the mere existence of it? If the former, what would have been acceptable to you?
 
"there are already 23,17, and 15 floor buildings surrounding it 2 other sides"

According to your simplistic approach to planning, we could have 23 storey buildings emanating from anywhere one already exists! You do not appear to have much knowledge of the Official Plan, Secondary Plans or other policies that govern where intensification is supposed to occur. Currently, in the YE area, intensification is happening where the developers want it. You'd probably go along with that too. BTW, you should know that the YE Centre is one of only 5 Growth Centres in TO. It is expected to intensify. Does that mean across the street should be the same? Furthermore, the nice walk up town homes were given part of the public realm. How nice is that? We all move over so an insensitive developer makes more profit! How is that good planning?
 
"It's no where near as "offensive" as the Stalinesque Brutalist monstrosities across the street from it. Those have absolutely no respect for the streetscape or pedestrians. This building will greatly soften the architecture of the area."

Correct and they were approved during the bad planning days just before the Crombie era. That's the kind of mistake unprofessional planners can make and what we are hoping to avoid with all this focus on good and comprehensive planning.

"Just south on Duplex, the Berwick" is how the NEOn should have been dealt with. It respects the neighbourhoods area opposite. We tried to use the Berwick as an example of how the NEON should have progressed but the fix was in. It was all profit and politics.

There's never a good reason for bad planning.

I do not object to the height of NEON. (Remember, it was the local residents who voted to allow the three extra floors if only they could get wider sidewalks with fewer trucks reversing over ten, etc) I object to the obtuse Transition. It is at the end of the block, opposite single family residences (just like Berwick) and it stole rights, privileges, privacy, sunlight and sky view. It was a really offensive hatchet-job.
 
across the street? are you suggesting that an area across the street from a major subway interchange (O.K., one block) should not be intensified? You do not appear to have much knowledge of what city planning involves. No, a 20 story building should not necessarily be built if there is a 20 floor building beside it. but if it is located in, or VERY close to Yonge and Eglinton, which, coming from your own mouth "is one of only 5 Growth Centres in TO", yes, 20 floors is justified.

also, i am confused on how you say you are ok with the 20 floors, but then move on to complain about it blocking sunlight.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top