[Waterloo_Guy]

well, how do you figure can they make a building of a similar hieght and be even closer to the houses. How can it possibly go a head being placed where it is when only across the street literally got cut down again due to shadows.

That didn't happen. 1BE was approved for higher than it was built. It was the developer that decided to go shorter.

 

[Odin]

Yes... I am serious. "retrograde simpletons"..."Neanderthal tendencies"..."cavemen"... isn't calling someone else out, but simply name calling.

The one month deferral is the latest news in this application/development. Isn't discussing the latest TEYCC meeting and the reasoning behind the deferral appropriate. KWT has been on the record stating that she will delay this application or make it difficult (for the life of me, I cannot find the interview or recall the precise language, but when I do, I will post it). Is it not reasonable to then question her motives and this one month deferral? (acknowledging that personal attacks are unreasonable). The planning department is in favour of this application and put forward a recommendation for its approval with conditions. I don't think they always get it right, but I would definitely put more weight into planning than a local councillor.

I think the fact that Wong-Tam tried to have the building designated heritage (within 48 hours of learning that a demolition permit had been issued as per this article: http://torontolife.com/city/qa-sam-mizrahi-developer-snagged-torontos-coveted-piece-real-estate/ ) is proof that she has tried to stall this development right from the start. I doubt Wong-Tam considered the building worthy of heritage designation. Her move was IMO just a cynical attempt to gain extra leverage over a developer. Now that the site has been cleared the developer now has the upper hand as I doubt the city wants this important site to remain vacant for years to come. I believe that had she acted in good faith the developer would not have been inclined to take jackhammers to the decorative features of the facade.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

I think the fact that Wong-Tam tried to have the building designated heritage (within 48 hours of learning that a demolition permit had been issued as per this article: http://torontolife.com/city/qa-sam-mizrahi-developer-snagged-torontos-coveted-piece-real-estate/ ) is proof that she has tried to stall this development right from the start. I doubt Wong-Tam considered the building worthy of heritage designation. Her move was IMO just a cynical attempt to gain extra leverage over a developer. Now that the site has been cleared the developer now has the upper hand as I doubt the city wants this important site to remain vacant for years to come. I believe that had she acted in good faith the developer would not have been inclined to take jackhammers to the decorative features of the facade.

Perfectly stated.

 

[Lenser]

Since pure conjecture is the name of the game tonight, perhaps KWT simply tried to slow down what she saw as a too-rapid process without due diligence. Is that not equally possible?

It's amazing, this UT contingent apparently eager to light the torches and pass out the pitchforks, all in a lather to drive out the heretic among them.

 

[Odin]

Since pure conjecture is the name of the game tonight, perhaps KWT simply tried to slow down what she saw as a too-rapid process without due diligence. Is that not equally possible?

It's amazing, this UT contingent apparently eager to light the torches and pass out the pitchforks, all in a lather to drive out the heretic among them.

I don't think so. If you read the Toronto Life article she was well aware that the site had been sold and that development was imminent. It was only when the developer obtained demolition permits that she moved to have the building designated heritage. If she thought the building was worthy of heritage designation why did she move years ago to have it designated? It was a pure stalling tactic which IMO shows a lack of good faith on her part.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't think so. If you read the Toronto Life article she was well aware that the site had been sold and that development was imminent. It was only when the developer obtained demolition permits that she moved to have the building designated heritage. If she thought the building was worthy of heritage designation why did she move years ago to have it designated? It was a pure stalling tactic which IMO shows a lack of good faith on her part.

You might want to consult the postings regarding the developers other properties in Yorkville and how the heritage component was handled prior to redevelopment.

And you do realize that the article is a one-sided Q&A right?

AoD

 

[am29]

Again, this is all conjecture. No one knows what's really happening here. As far as I know, publicly KWT has been nothing but supportive for Mizrahi's plan. As in, any statements she's made have been no more or less supportive than a councillor should be (despite what some seem to think, a councillor's job is not to advertise a private developers project). All I've said is, if KWT is holding a grudge against Mizrahi (and that's a big if), then he brought it on himself by being a dick with the local councillor. Mizrahi's behaviour has been erratic and, re. the Stollery's issue, was simply insulting. The way he went about the Stollery's issue was unnecessarily crude and struck me as a huge middle finger toward the person who would play a key role in moving his project from fantasy to reality.

Now, considering how well this project is moving along (compared to say the Mirvish-Gehry towers or One Yonge, the One has been moving at a supersonic pace) I find all the speculation about her holding a grudge ridiculous and simply one more example of the ignorance many on this forum have for how the planning process works, as well as a latent sexism against women councillors (and especially KWT, who is a prominent member of Council). I can understand disagreeing with her and her decisions but the way people on this forum write about her (and Jennifer Keesmaat, for that matter), you'd think KWT was some wild-eyed CommuNazi bent on destroying Toronto and it's well-deserved success. All I see is a councillor who puts her constituents needs before profit.

Although I agree with much of what you said there, but I do find it funny how you talk about sexism against women in the same post where you call Mizrahi a "dick". Referring to a male as a "dick" while referring to erratic or insulting behavior is not OK.

 

[am29]

It'd be great if, once this project is finally approved and there's more consistent basis for substantive discussion on the development itself, all of the ignorantly anti-KWT cavemen on this thread would beat it, forever. To any of you who quickly dismiss KWT, the policies she's supported, or her demeanour in any way: have you actually met her, even once? Had her deal with a constituent issue of yours? Seen her debate from the floor of Council? Interacted with her in a private enterprise capacity? I'd bet my bottom dollar that the answer is no, of course not, to each.

Much more likely is that, probably at best, you saw an edited video of her partaking in a round of respectful, adult, critical debate that happened to run counter to your oddly composed viewpoints on a particular issue and said "oh yeah, she's the worst", or probably something much more sexist, and then hopped on here to display your Neanderthal tendencies for all to see, all behind the protection of anonymity afforded by an online thread—that's just the peak of cowardice, you retrograde simpletons.

KWT as my councillor, has been professional, helpful, responsive, and caring. Nothing less, ever. If she does indeed choose not to stand for re-election, it'll be Toronto and Ward 27's sincere and significant loss. One can only hope her eventual replacement is as dedicated and capable. If you want Mammoliti or Perruzza or one of those sorts to take over for her, feel free to move to rural Texas—there are lots of those sorts of wonderfully eloquent and intelligent urbanists there.

Again, funny to see one mentioning sexism and then going ahead and calling males on this board "cavemen" and "neanderthals" for expressing their views..

 

[Lenser]

It was a pure stalling tactic which IMO shows a lack of good faith on her part.

I imagine she would readily agree with you on your categorization of her move being a stalling tactic. Perhaps she saw it as a tool she used to delay a chain of events which she thought was moving too quickly. Whether or not it's "a lack of good faith" is another matter altogether.

 

[torontologist]

Again, funny to see one mentioning sexism and then going ahead and calling males on this board "cavemen" and "neanderthals" for expressing their views..

What makes you think everyone on this board/involved in this discussion is male?

 

[am29]

What makes you think everyone on this board/involved in this discussion is male?

Nothing makes me think that, nor did I say that, or imply that. In not sure what type glasses you're using while reading this? See, I implied ADRM was address the male's (not the females) on UT because he called them caveMEN.. not caveWOMEN.

 

[Lenser]

Methinks this thread doth goeth askew.

 

[interchange42]

Yeah, enough.

42

 

[Big Daddy]

Possible solution to the lane way issue?

 

[wolfewood]

Although I agree with much of what you said there, but I do find it funny how you talk about sexism against women in the same post where you call Mizrahi a "dick". Referring to a male as a "dick" while referring to erratic or insulting behavior is not OK.

My apologies. Mizrahi's behaviour was acting like a fiend, a jerk or an asshole, whichever you prefer.