Undead
Senior Member
The holy dog dropping in Jesse Ketchum Park must be protected.
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
UrbanOzz
Active Member
the big problem for me here is it's literally at Yonge & Bloor where 2 major retail streets intersect and 2 major subway lines intersect. This is the place where you approve height increases. it's here, this very spot.
Towered
Superstar
Jesse Ketchum up to its old antics again, I see! Unbelievable.
Bjays92
Senior Member
I'm sorry but this is just ridiculous. I hate the blame everything on city planning narrative but sometimes it's so ass backwards.
Hopefully this wins at OLT.
Hopefully this wins at OLT.
C-mac
Senior Member
Dude, I just went on google maps street view, I can't possible see how the height increase is going to make any difference to the park at all. From Yonge and Bloor, they're concerned about and extra 25 meters (or whatever the difference is) over to Bay and Scollard. I can't see this type of increase effecting the shadows in any significant way from that distance.
UpwithOlives
Active Member
In no significant way. There is a study posted somewhere on this site. The increase adds to the shadow in the 10:00 am to 11:00 am time window in March and September.
No other time of day or year.
zang
Senior Member
Here's a point few seem to want to make:
Maybe the denial of height is in retribution for tearing down Stollery's while it was waiting on heritage standing?
As this is municipally/historically/socially important intersection, rushing to demolish one of its long existing properties was getting off on a really bad foot with the city.
In which case, it was never really about the height to begin with (but is a good enough excuse to give him slap him on the wrist), and nothing is likely to get him the increase.
Maybe the denial of height is in retribution for tearing down Stollery's while it was waiting on heritage standing?
As this is municipally/historically/socially important intersection, rushing to demolish one of its long existing properties was getting off on a really bad foot with the city.
In which case, it was never really about the height to begin with (but is a good enough excuse to give him slap him on the wrist), and nothing is likely to get him the increase.
Benito
Senior Member
Today.
ushahid
Senior Member
i think they can settle at 328 to 330m and call it a day. 
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I hope he flat out challenges that...as The City's reasoning borders on the absurd, IMO.
Northern Light
Superstar
He has appealed.
As to his chances, ya never know........but my instinct is he loses; the City is upholding precedent and established policy here. The OLT does throw that out on occasion; but it's far from a given here.
The only real opening here would be if the new Councillor were onside; that would almost certainly require an extraordinarily generous S.37 offering.
When Cllr. Layton was in office, it's clear that the City was unwilling to have that conversation, because the Councillor was unwilling to have that conversation.
I'm not sure there's a resolution to be had though.
Last edited:
khaldoon
Active Member
I think if it was a clear-cut case (for example, shadows vs no shadows) then they have a solid case but when it is all relative (say 50 minutes of shadows vs 35 minutes every morning two months of the year) then it is hard to argue the case. Where do they draw the line, 10%, 25%,50% more? And do they have that documented and applied to all developers and areas in the city?
Northern Light
Superstar
The issue isn't merely incremental shadow, that's one piece of the puzzle.
It's also total shadow. Jesse Ketchum is already in part shadow. The second part of the puzzle is when is the shadow? In the case of a school yard, they're particularly concerned about school-hours, especially, recess times, lunch and right after school.
The final piece is precedent. If we allow that extra 10% here, who else is going to then demand 10% more after that and 10% more after that, until the school and park get no sun at all.
There is absolutely a balance to be struck and one can always quibble with whether the City has that balance right in any given instance, but its not the proverbial black and white scenario some would think.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
remember that s.37 no longer exists!
My guess is that Mizrahi wins here to be honest, the OLT hasn't been kind to the city's "no shadowing on parks" positions in the past, and now there is provincial policy direction through their Downtown Secondary Plan modifications making it clear to the city that it should not and can not zealously guard downtown parks from all new shadows.
We are ultimately talking about a relatively small amount of additional shadowing on Jesse Ketchum at 10 in the morning, and a shadow which will move extremely quickly given the distance of the building from the park.. There is no incremental shadow impact at 9am, nor at 11am.
In all likelyhood, the OLT will look at this and say "yea there is no way that can't be considered minor, City, you are out to lunch". Never a guarantee though.
Northern Light
Superstar
The Planning report is very clear that it does exist, on this app.
The first part of the above is entirely plausible; the second does not accurately describe this particular situation. The City is very much concerned about no sun at all on this park and school yard. (not just this app. in isolation.)