[DC83]

Won't Somebody Think of FLY!?

Well said, Marsh! I agree with you, ESPECIALLY regarding the over-stressed TTC in the area.
Also, I appreciate your comment regarding lack of parkspace in the Village-area.
I really wish the empty grass lot at Church & Isabella were converted into a PUBLIC park rather than a condo.

All the young folks I speak to are afraid Fly will be shafted, though promised a space by developers - and I think those concerns are also legitimate. I mean, how long until after folks move into the new glass box that they start complaining about noise and disorderly (drunken) conduct going on infront of their lobby? You better believe the Condo Board will lobby to kill their lease the minute someone vomits outfront!

 

[Bayer]

I mean, how long until after folks move into the new glass box that they start complaining about noise and disorderly (drunken) conduct going on infront of their lobby?

If that club's patrons cannot enjoy themselves while remaining civilized and respecting the people who reside in the vicinity, then any repercussions will be well-deserved.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I get the feeling that the developer plants people in the room for these meetings, I have no proof though. It sounds like the same pro arguments for a building at these meeting that I've attended. Norman Jewison was there, he owns the building next to the proposal to the north and will lose light and views, namely of the parkette that bears his name, which has a twist of irony to it. I knew he had offices there but I didn't know he owned the building.

 

[ThomasJ]

I get the feeling that the developer plants people in the room for these meetings, I have no proof though. It sounds like the same pro arguments for a building at these meeting that I've attended. Norman Jewison was there, he owns the building next to the proposal to the north and will lose light and views, namely of the parkette that bears his name, which has a twist of irony to it. I knew he had offices there but I didn't know he owned the building.

maybe i'm just going to the wrong meetings but i haven't seen much of a positive sentiment at the ones I've been to in the past. your "plants" idea brings out the conspiracy theorist in me but as you say no proof and a bit far-fetched as nothing fishy stood out last night.

norman jewison actually got up and spoke during the question period and was greeted with rounding applause by the audience. was interesting to hear the developer's rep say after that the developer had spoken to jewison's family at the outset and was met with no opposition. i guess people have the right to change their mind. or maybe they showed him 9 storeys at first and then pulled a bait-and-switch!

 

[Bloor101]

Well said, Marsh! I agree with you, ESPECIALLY regarding the over-stressed TTC in the area.
Also, I appreciate your comment regarding lack of parkspace in the Village-area.
I really wish the empty grass lot at Church & Isabella were converted into a PUBLIC park rather than a condo.

All the young folks I speak to are afraid Fly will be shafted, though promised a space by developers - and I think those concerns are also legitimate. I mean, how long until after folks move into the new glass box that they start complaining about noise and disorderly (drunken) conduct going on infront of their lobby? You better believe the Condo Board will lobby to kill their lease the minute someone vomits outfront!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe FLY will remain once the project goes ahead. It looks to me like the back part of the building that houses fly will be part of the condo. I believe they will be allowed to stay until the end of their lease which ends in 2015.

What is funny is that a club opened up in the base of a condo @ 393 King St West. It is called crown lounge and has live DJ's every weekend. That place must be sound proofed really well, otherwise I cannot imagine anyone not complaining!

 

[kondoz]

Any idea as to the actual floorplate of this condo (not the full site)? It looks quite tiny.

 

[kondoz]

Think I found it, 1372 sq meters (from zoning amendment application). Which is a lot larger than I thought.

 

[DC83]

If that club's patrons cannot enjoy themselves while remaining civilized and respecting the people who reside in the vicinity, then any repercussions will be well-deserved.

Who's to say that any vomit would be from a club-goer? What if it was from a homeless person, or simply a random passer-by with an upset stomach?
The point I'm trying to make is that Unit Owners will do anything they can to get rid of such an establishment! Esp if it's IN their complex.

I'm not sure if the new plans include a space for Fly, but I thought the developer said they would work with the successful club to make things work.
I'm sick of condos being put up simply to have yuppy buyers complain about it's surroundings! Like those who complain about street closures during Pride/Halloween/etc.

I remember a couple years ago on I believe wood St or one of those a lady complaining to a cop re: public drinking. The cop simply replied, "It's Pride".

Let's not kill what makes this city great! And that's not high-rise condo towers; it's the little establishments that line our streets which keep Toronto REAL - I wonder how much longer Toronto will stay true to itself.
Hogtown is about to return to it's Hogtown roots. Boring, expensive, crowded.

 

[ThomasJ]

Think I found it, 1372 sq meters (from zoning amendment application). Which is a lot larger than I thought.

pretty sure that number includes the masonic hall. the architect said during the presentation that the floorplate of the tower was less than 750 sqm (which is the tall buildings guideline maximum) so i think youre right kondoz it's pretty small. the architect's spin was that it made for a lesser shadow impact which i suppose is true.

the 1372 number is probably the total coverage. from the application that you looked at, the site envelope is 45.7x32.3=1476 sqm which is about the same size as the Nicholas site. on the small side but the corner location helps in both instances and there are smaller ones out there ie: crystal blu, theatre park, M5V, museum house etc.

 

[AlbertC]

Sorry to tell you, Jewison, but you're just being a classic NIMBY.

http://thetorontoblog.com/2011/10/1...ndo-tower-proposal-for-yonge-gloucester-site/

Acclaimed Hollywood movie director slams ‘bizarre’ condo tower proposal for Yonge & Gloucester site

14 Oct 2011

Calling the condo plan “a bizarre idea,” Mr. Jewison expressed dismay that his building “will be completely in shade. Every single window in our building will now be looking into somebody’s bedroom. We’ll have no light. No sun. No view,” he said. “Everything is just squeezed in,” he added, referring to the compact site for the proposed L-shaped, 200,000-square-foot tower which, he said, would bring “a tremendous influx of people into this neighbourhood.”

Mr. Hunter said the developer has been working with its architects and other consultants for more than a year and half to develop its condo proposal. He said the parties realized the project had to be “sensitive” to the linear park and low-rise neighbourhood to its east, and also had to address transportation, heritage and density concerns. He called the proposal filed with the city “a very compatible fit with the existing mix of buildings in the area.”

Mr. Pontarini noted that his firm has “extensive involvement on North Yonge,” having designed the 45-storey FIVE Condos project currently under construction one block southwest of 2-8 Gloucester, as well as the 70-storey One Bloor condo tower presently being built three blocks north. Hariri Pontarini also was one of the consultants involved in the City of Toronto’s Tall Buildings Downtown Project. “We’re very interested in what’s happening along Yonge Street” and in Yonge Street historical preservation, Mr. Pontarini said, adding that the 2-8 Gloucester project “shows how development could occur along Yonge Street.”

His slide illustrations showed that the project calls for the 1878 Masonic Hall building at 2 Gloucester (a City-designated heritage building that now contains street-level retail, along with upper-level offices and condo units) to be preserved and restored, while the building at 8 Gloucester Street (listed, but not yet designated by the City as a heritage building) probably would be pushed forward closer to Gloucester at the southeast corner of the site. No decision has yet been made as to whether that building will be moved in its entirety, or dismantled and reassembled in the new location. Currently occupied by a restaurant and a nightclub, 8 Gloucester would become a “retail component” of the condo development, Mr. Pontarini said.

Audience reaction to the proposal was mixed. I found it curious that several people who spoke in favour of the development used the exact same words, all saying they wanted to “commend” the developer, and all saying they found the glass tower design “intriguing” and “interesting.” One supporter said he thought the development would be “a plus for the neighbourhood,” while another said she thinks it “will upgrade the neighbourhood and make it more beautiful,” since the project will “improve amenities” in the area.

 

[SP!RE]

At the same time, being a Hollywood director does not make your opinion of urban planning issues more important by default. But thank you, Mr. Jewison.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Having your office windows blocked on a building that you own now constitutes being a NIMBY?

Audience reaction to the proposal was mixed. I found it curious that several people who spoke in favour of the development used the exact same words, all saying they wanted to “commend†the developer, and all saying they found the glass tower design “intriguing†and “interesting.†One supporter said he thought the development would be “a plus for the neighbourhood,†while another said she thinks it “will upgrade the neighbourhood and make it more beautiful,†since the project will “improve amenities†in the area.

Vindicated!

 

[marsh]

Personally I sympthasize with Mr. Jewison. I agree his veiws are no more important than anyone else's but he has a right to express them. It's ironic that the proposed tower will shadow the park named afte him. I think its a point of pride that his offices are in our neighbourhood. I would hate to him leave the neigbhourhood and set up offices else where as a result of this development.

 

[ThomasJ]

Having your office windows blocked on a building that you own now constitutes being a NIMBY?



Vindicated!

those office windows are nonconforming (since they are located on the side of a building which is built to a property line). in theory, the developers at gloucester could build a six-storey building - or whatever the height allowance is as of right - up to the rear of their property line and cover jewison's side windows in their entirety. and they can do this without a need for any variance or zoning permissions. this is an important point, and it's one that jewison is either unaware of or has chosen to disregard.

i was there at the meeting and would agree with the characterization of jewison's comments as being nimbyish. he didn't communicate anything substantive and this has been adequately covered above so let's not beat a dead horse on the issue. the man is a cultural icon. as SP!RE points out, this doesn't make his opinion on planning matters any more valid than the next person's, but he should be given due respect for what he has accomplished in the realm of the arts and not taken to task over an issue that is essentially irrelevant to this development proposal.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I just presumed it was the east facing windows that look out to Norman Jewison parkette, I never noticed south facing windows. It still sucks, but as you say the building is on a property line so that's progress, unfortunately.