1592509161106.png
 
The thing is, this particular letter aside, all the other submissions (including the new submission from the Cooks' condo's board) seem fairly reasonable. Things like "we don't like the height but we'll take it in exchange for the park, so find a way to make the park a legal requirement."
They all talk about the process and all the meetings.
The letter posted in this thread really does come off as buyer's remorse. I live about a block from there, and I assure you the signs were all posted.
 
I think on top of everything, the NIMBYs are wrong in their assumptions. Don’t you think this new development will actually increase their property value at 10 Delisle? Although the current eclectic retail is kind of charming, the new building will be next level architecture and execution. Slate has proven at this intersection that they know how to execute retail and lobbies at grade. Very fine work in the immediate area with more investment on the way.

Moreover, the new sale prices per square foot (and design and finishes) at One Delisle will obviously exceed those of 10 Delisle and lift that building with it.

And it will be an architectural icon that will bring prestige and a sense of address to a grubby corner. And deliver significant new public space for everyone to enjoy, including the residents of 10 Delisle. And contribute a very large cash payment towards affordable housing. And, and, and.

They’re so reflexively afraid of change (...”horrified...”) that they haven’t actually realized the significant benefits they will receive. Which is why their letter is so incoherent, grasping, and breathless. In the absence of reasoned argument (let alone any clue about land use planning policy) all they have is that old white boomer weapon of privilege: OUTRAGE!!!!
 
Last edited:
@AlbertC, is the photo in your post of Carol Burnham Cook? And if so, did she actually say “I was never told about this proposal“? I note that you don’t claim either of these things specifically but the context suggests it. If not, somebody is being exposed to scorn she doesn’t deserve. If it is, on the other hand, it is Ms. Cook or somebody else at the meeting who said these words, mock away!

Just to be clear, I like the proposal and don’t like nimbyism. But manipulated media is an increasing problem in the age of Trump. Please note that I am not accusing you of this. I am simply asking for enough information to evaluate the photo.
 
67Cup said:
@AlbertC, is the photo in your post of Carol Burnham Cook? And if so, did she actually say “I was never told about this proposal“? I note that you don’t claim either of these things specifically but the context suggests it. If not, somebody is being exposed to scorn she doesn’t deserve. If it is, on the other hand (or somebody else at the meeting who said these words) mock away!

Just to be clear, I like the proposal and don’t like nimbyism. But manipulated media is an increasing problem in the age of Trump. Please note that I am not accusing you of this. I am simply asking for enough information to evaluate the photo.
Click to expand...
chill man, some humor never hurts
 
67Cup said:
@AlbertC, is the photo in your post of Carol Burnham Cook? And if so, did she actually say “I was never told about this proposal“? I note that you don’t claim either of these things specifically but the context suggests it. If not, somebody is being exposed to scorn she doesn’t deserve. If it is, on the other hand, it is Ms. Cook or somebody else at the meeting who said these words, mock away!

Just to be clear, I like the proposal and don’t like nimbyism. But manipulated media is an increasing problem in the age of Trump. Please note that I am not accusing you of this. I am simply asking for enough information to evaluate the photo.
Click to expand...

Not to dwell into things too literally. But it's a mockery to the ignorance and arrogance conveyed in the letter. They purchased their condo over a year after the proposal was first announced, and are complaining about it now. If one does their homework ahead of investing in real estate, then they should be aware of their immediate current and future surroundings.

And if they remain offended, then perhaps invest in somewhere else more idyllic. Furthermore, it's a mockery on the statements of "Our understanding is that Yonge and St. Clair is not a designated growth area, so why is this anomaly being considered?" and the final sentence of "Please also inform us when that has been done."
 
Last edited:
I like neither the content nor the tone of the Cooks’ letter. Mock away!

But, just to be clear, is the photo of some unidentified older woman, possibly someone’s granny, who didn’t, in fact, say the words in the subtitle? If so, as far as I can tell from the information you have provided, the photo might be be a generic photo of some other meeting about some unidentified subject. And for all I know, the woman could speaking in favour of, say, a breakfast programme for disadvantaged school children or some equally inoffensive cause and you have used it to mock the Delisle nimbies. Have I understood you correctly?

I don’t want raise the temperature around this unnecessarily but can you see that there might be some dangerous examples of that kind of procedure out there?
 
67Cup said:
I like neither the content nor the tone of the Cooks’ letter. Mock away!

But, just to be clear, is the photo of some unidentified older woman, possibly someone’s granny, who didn’t, in fact, say the words in the subtitle? If so, as far as I can tell from the information you have provided, the photo might be be a generic photo of some other meeting about some unidentified subject. And for all I know, the woman could speaking in favour of, say, a breakfast programme for disadvantaged school children or some equally inoffensive cause and you have used it to mock the Delisle nimbies. Have I understood you correctly?

I don’t want raise the temperature around this unnecessarily but can you see that there might be some dangerous examples of that kind of procedure out there?
Click to expand...
it's called a meme, welcome to 2020
 
67Cup said:
I like neither the content nor the tone of the Cooks’ letter. Mock away!

But, just to be clear, is the photo of some unidentified older woman, possibly someone’s granny, who didn’t, in fact, say the words in the subtitle? If so, as far as I can tell from the information you have provided, the photo might be be a generic photo of some other meeting about some unidentified subject. And for all I know, the woman could speaking in favour of, say, a breakfast programme for disadvantaged school children or some equally inoffensive cause and you have used it to mock the Delisle nimbies. Have I understood you correctly?

I don’t want raise the temperature around this unnecessarily but can you see that there might be some dangerous examples of that kind of procedure out there?
Click to expand...
A meme is not meant to literally portray anyone, no harm is meant by the poster toward the particular woman pictured, and that is understood by the vast majority viewing the image. It is only meant as representative of the type of pushback that is heard at so many development meetings.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top