DSC said:
This is simply not true. The SLNA were in support of a peaceful end to the occupation and of course some individual Delegates supported their aims while others did not. The President and the SLNA itself did not take a position on their issues, only that a peaceful end was the much desired outcome. . The SLNA minutes on www note "Occupy T.O. – Councillor Pam McConnell’s work praised in reaching peaceful outcome"

Since you clearly see the world through 'Right Wing spectacles' and seem to have a tendency to state your opinion as being the only 'truth" I am putting you on my (very short) ignore list. Not to prolong this discsusion of old issues I would note that your inaccurate assertion that the SLNA is only interested in "Esplanade issues" is rather demolished by your more recent assertion that they had opinions on St James' Park.
Click to expand...

I also attend the SLNA on a regular basis and DSC is right. The SLNA discussed the Occupy Toronto situation in St James Park but never took a position on OT's aims - their prime concern was that the occupation of the park ended peacefully. Andrea Palladio was a fantastic artist/architect; it's a pity you have expropriated his name. (By the way, how can one ignore (unfriend) someone on UT?)
 
I did that a long time ago, i've lost too much time arguing with trolls. Click on the person's screen name on one of their posts, then "view profile", and then "add to ignore list".
 
DSC said:
This is simply not true. The SLNA were in support of a peaceful end to the occupation and of course some individual Delegates supported their aims while others did not. The President and the SLNA itself did not take a position on their issues, only that a peaceful end was the much desired outcome. . The SLNA minutes on www note "Occupy T.O. – Councillor Pam McConnell’s work praised in reaching peaceful outcome"

Since you clearly see the world through 'Right Wing spectacles' and seem to have a tendency to state your opinion as being the only 'truth" I am putting you on my (very short) ignore list. Not to prolong this discsusion of old issues I would note that your inaccurate assertion that the SLNA is only interested in "Esplanade issues" is rather demolished by your more recent assertion that they had opinions on St James' Park.
Click to expand...

Well, of course they praised Pam McConnell. She was the representative of the squatters. And the President of the SNLA came to a public meeting to say how much she supported what the squatters were doing. One doubts she would have said the same had they camped out on the Esplanade.
 
AndreaPalladio said:
One doubts she would have said the same had they camped out on the Esplanade.
Click to expand...

A sign of a poor argument: using unsupported hypothetical statements to misconstrue someone's views.

The building is pretty but inappropriate for the area. The OMB has some strengths, but it is a judicial body with a poor understanding of urban development. It depoliticizes decisions to the point that it re-politicizes them in favour of the "non-political" side - ie, the developers.
 
When you and others say "inappropriate for the area", what do you mean? Too tall? Too dense? Too modern? I was surprised to see in the OMB decision that the complainants were proposing a traditional building at 17 stories with the same density of the proposal. This suggests that height is a bit of it, but that mainly there is an objection to having a modern building in this area, and that the complainants want to mirror the same boring brick condos west on Front. Am I missing something?
 
Grimace said:
When you and others say "inappropriate for the area", what do you mean? Too tall? Too dense? Too modern? I was surprised to see in the OMB decision that the complainants were proposing a traditional building at 17 stories with the same density of the proposal. This suggests that height is a bit of it, but that mainly there is an objection to having a modern building in this area, and that the complainants want to mirror the same boring brick condos west on Front. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
You may want to look at the City Design Review Panel's comments - see http://www.toronto.ca/planning/pdf/design_review/drp_meeting_minutes_july12.pdf They strongly recommendeda redesign though they, and many of us, liked SOME aspects of the proposal.
 
I recall reading those when they came out. They question the density, but the alternative proposal put forward at the OMB maintained density. The DRP split on the height, with some saying this was not the place for a "tower". The alternative proposal is not a tower, but is 17 storeys rather than the 26. Then there is a lot of discussion about "context", and some discussion about materials and podium treatment, which seem to relate to "context". The main points made on context seem to be the same points on density and height, made more strongly.

If the argument is that this is too high and too dense, fine, I don't agree with that but it's easy to understand. But the characterization of the alternative proposal (which I have not seen) seems to say that density is conceded, height is dropped 9 storeys, but there is still a lot of fuzzy language about context that, reading between the lines, seems to say that the opposition does not like the modern design of this building for the area and wants something that looks like the other condos to the west on Front. That I find more objectionable than the conventional concerns about density and height, so I'm curious if I am reading the objection correctly.
 
I'm working on a project in Montreal at the minute and couldn't help but notice some similarities between the 2 projects

12154355-babylone-condo-project-in-montreal-view-from-the-front.jpg
 
Or, h Tower, when viewed from the other direction.
 
I was really looking forward to this project. Anyone in the know about Cityzen who can tell us what might be happening here?
 
modern™ said:
I was really looking forward to this project. Anyone in the know about Cityzen who can tell us what might be happening here?
Click to expand...

This has the most byzantine case history at the OMB that I have run into yet.

The first hearing was in October 2012. The result was this document which basically says the 26 storey height is okay for the area, but that there were more details that it wanted worked out.

A continuation of the hearing took place in October 2013. The result was this document which essentially issues an update on the progress of talks between the City and the developer in regard to outstanding issues, and that more is yet to come.

Another continuation in November 2013 resulted in this status update, announcing another hearing date the following year.

By the time of the next hearing in February of this year, the City and developer had still not settled all outstanding issues, and this report set a date for another continuation.

The next continuation of the hearing was in May. The report from it records that the City and the developer have agreed on the outstanding issues, and that the Zoning By-Law Amendment and Site Plan will be finalized based on the agreement. Once the board gets the ZBA and Site Plan, they will issue an order to go ahead.

If the documentation has been finalized since then, there is no mention of it online yet that I can find.

In the meantime, the next Cityzen project coming to marketing will be 592 Sherbourne.

42
 
Thanks for the overview, interchange! Sounds like the wheels are still turning on this one, regardless of multiple hurdles.
 
modern™ said:
Thanks for the overview, interchange! Sounds like the wheels are still turning on this one, regardless of multiple hurdles.
Click to expand...
Yes the City and the developer continue to work on the site plan. The permit for the surface parking lot was extended (at the developer's request) for two years so it now expires in mid-September 2016 - of course it could close sooner.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top