I can't believe how little familiarity some of you guys have with the concept of diplomacy. (i.e. For a crude, off-the-top-of-my-head-example, President Obama might early on have kept quiet about his support for gay marriage, but it was his silence that kept his detractors at bay while many states made strides on gay marriage. Had he spoken up too soon, he could have lost a LOT of support, and the movement towards gay marriage could have been lost. Yeesh I don't like that example because I am far from an Obama fan, but there you have it. Diplomacy at work.)

No, I can't believe how you fail to understand that staying silent to keep detractors at bay is entirely different from actually saying things that are the complete opposite of your stated political platform to appease, and gain support of those detractors.

That would be the equivalent of Obama going up as soon as he got elected and saying "Yeah, I know I promised to legalize same sex marriage, but I'm not sure. Maybe we shouldn't?"


She represents all people in her ward, including the Yorkville business-owners, some of whom have unreasonable parking expectations. Thus, she has to throw them a bone as well.

No she does not! The whole point of electing one official, and not letting all the candidates take power is so that instead of having stalemates where everyone is arguing, society can progress in favour of the majority (who elected one official to represent them). A Conservative does not (and should not) have to represent the views of a liberal, and vice versa.
 
Last edited:
Find me a quote from a politician who has supported a pair of buldings these size straight up without any concerns, please.
 
DtTO,

She is not representing the views of Conservatives or solely the business owners. This is ONE quote from ONE article, and it has nothing to do with her final thoughts on the project.

She simply said that she was INITIALLY worried about the loss of parking at that location. But then she continues on speaking in that quotation, which you seem to have missed.

Where did she say once in that article, "And my final conclusion about this project is that it must be stopped to protect the parking at this location." Find it for me, or else I will remain convinced that you are being unreasonable.

Find me a quote from a politician who has supported a pair of buldings these size straight up without any concerns, please.

Exactly! I would hope such politicians wouldn't even exist, because if they do, they aren't doing their job properly. There are lots of things to be considered with developments of this size, and MANY stakeholders and members of the public whose opinions have to be considered, or at least who need to FEEL as if their points of view have been considered.
 
Last edited:
DtTO,

She is not representing the views of Conservatives or solely the business owners. This is ONE quote from ONE article, and it has nothing to do with her final thoughts on the project.

She simply said that she was INITIALLY worried about the loss of parking at that location. But then she continues on speaking in that quotation, which you seem to have missed.

Where did she say once in that article, "And my final conclusion about this project is that it must be stopped to protect the parking at this location." Find it for me, or else I will remain convinced that you are being unreasonable.

I understand that, but it is still worrying that a supposedly progressive councillor would even bring that up. Not only is it counterproductive to officially endorse the idea that parking is a necessity in the downtown core, but that statement (as small as it may be) will rally NIMBYs and could have a profound effect on their attitude towards the project. I get that she hasn't given a final conclusion, but I also don't buy that she was "just saying it." Do you not think that she has spent some time studying the proposal before speaking about it to the media? Obviously she has, and the fact that she brought up parking as an issue, leads me to believe that she really is considering it an issue.
 
Politicians can be duplicitous and annoyingly hedge their positions. However, they represent a range of views, they are not there to always push their own agenda. Some politicians can and do take this standpoint (Harper, Ford) while others take a peacemaker and conciliatory role that seeks to bind together disparate viewpoints to come to a solution (Wong-Tam). If a politician takes a position that you don't agree with, they can make you feel better by listening to your perspective and attempting to understand and sympathize with it. That is all she is doing it seems to me - reasoned judgement. A better solution can also arise, though not necessarily. While I hate parking in the city and don't mind at all its loss, I also understand that many people from the GTA drive to Yorkville as a destination to shop or dine. The single-minded promotion of my viewpoint would not address all the needs of the city, and I can recognize that - just as Wong-Tam seems to. In the end, the right decision will get made, but the process will be inclusive and understanding - that is all. I don't see a huge problem with it.

That would be the equivalent of Obama going up as soon as he got elected and saying "Yeah, I know I promised to legalize same sex marriage, but I'm not sure. Maybe we shouldn't?"

No, the equivalent would be to say, "I understand that there are worries about the loss of marriage as a holy union between two people for the purposes of creation, but I believe that those worries are not justified enough." You don't have to smash your opponents completely - that is the cause of the "culture wars" that are tearing the US apart IMHO.

Another example would be the oil sands. Harper said everything was a "no brainer" and dismissed the opposition. Now, the opposition tot Northern Gateway is so entrenched that it will never happen, while the Americans are delaying Keystone and its fate hangs in the balance. I suggest a conciliatory approach would have better succeeded in pushing a single-minded agenda. It doesn't always have to be my-way-or-the-highway (though sometimes it does).

No she does not! The whole point of electing one official, and not letting all the candidates take power is so that instead of having stalemates where everyone is arguing, society can progress in favour of the majority (who elected one official to represent them). A Conservative does not (and should not) have to represent the views of a liberal, and vice versa.

Again, you assume an antagonistic theory of politics whereby combatants fight based on one prescribed set of beliefs that are set in stone and are constantly and completely pushed forward. Other theories of democracy base themselves on dialogue, understanding and compromise. Check a Poli-Sci 101 class for the various theories. Still, obviously your view is valid as that is the way some people act politically. Clearly, Wong-Tam is just the latter theory in action. That may not be your cup of tea, so vote accordingly.

I get that she hasn't given a final conclusion, but I also don't buy that she was "just saying it."

Check the quote again. She has decided that it is worth it. I can't be inside her head, but saying that there is a concern then saying why that concern is not enough to stop the project doesn't mean she was "just saying it" - she could believe that business in Yorkville thrives by wealthy people driving in to spend their money. How many high-end shoppers take the subway in our fair burg? I'm sure many do drive unfortunately. Look at Yorkdale.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to apologize to everyone reading these posts for helping to start ignite this flame war. Whoops.

I'll join Xray Junkie in his apology. I'm the real culprit. When I found the article, my original intent was to highlight the contrast between former councilor Kyle Rae and Wong-Tam. Contrary to popular belief on here, I really do not care about whether a councilor is left wing or right wing or whatever. My primary interest is the development and planning process in Toronto, which is changing the paradigm in lands far away. A good thing.

I'll probably keep my personal opinions to myself and stop with the pics and quotes unless specifically related to offering information about the development.
 
I don't see any "flame war" but rather a discussion/debate and hopefully, an exchange of ideas. There were no personal insults thrown around, so I can't see what's wrong with it.
 
I don't see any "flame war" but rather a discussion/debate and hopefully, an exchange of ideas. There were no personal insults thrown around, so I can't see what's wrong with it.

+1

Both Spire and agoraflaneur made very compelling rebuttals to my argument. There were no insults thrown, and I don't think anybody took it too personally.
 
Yes, I certainly don't have any personal involvement and am only interested in an exchange of views, as I don't live in the area (my counsellor is more of the drunk-driving variety, when I live in Toronto anyway). I also understand why people would be annoyed by any defence of parking and can sympathize with the arguments against Wong-Tam. Personally, I think any opposition to towers here is absurd (though that doesn't mean more intelligent design can't occur through "opposition"). I just get the impression that Wong-Tam has a more nuanced approach, and she is dealing with a lot of proposals - no doubt amidst significant NIMBY activism. My point was really that we might actually get our towers faster by using her conciliatory approach. That said, we do need a strong voice for proper urbanism in the city, especially when faced with the aggressive posturing of Ford and the like.
 
After reviewing the renderings, I must agree with the DRP decision. Too much cheezy detailing on the towers that already looks instantly dated. It evokes more of flashy Vegas glam than of classy timeliness. Really not feeling the podium design either, which currently appears like a glitzed bunker. Alternate concepts should also be explored to enhance greater pedestrian appeal in that untravelled stretch of Yorkville.
 
Last edited:
I kind of liked this one. The towers are unique and the roofs look great (assuming no cheapening). The podium needs a little refinement, but I love the concept. My biggest fear is that this will end being the typical bland boxes with the typical square glass podium that we see repeated throughout the city.
 
Has the DRP improperly assumed that the entire 2nd floor is retail? I suspect it's only something like 30% tops, lining the northern face, and there is a bunch of parking in behind. To eliminate the whole second floor would mean getting rid of a bunch of parking as well.

I can understand where they're coming from though, the podium does seem a tad tall. As for over-development? Somewhat hard to argue with everything that is proposed/rising so close.
 

Back
Top