Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,345
Ben Spurr with a piece on the 'controversy' over this one in today's Star (paywalled at time of posting)


From the above, we get mostly a re-cap of what we already know, though a bit more detail on the so-called heritage objections from neighbours for which I have absolutely no time.

Harriett Altman, secretary of the Bayview Valley Ratepayers Association, another group backing the heritage plan, told community council that losing even a fraction of the existing buildings would be unacceptable.

“There is so much heritage in this property,” she said, citing the pontiff’s visit and his canonization in 2014. “Ripping down any part of it is sacrilegious.”

Let me get this straight, if the Pope spent 1 night at a B&B in Hoboken, New Jersey, the place is now heritage protected forever? Uhhhh........in a word, "No"

Readers here will be aware that I do share some of the concerns of the Planning department over the details of site organization, road layout and parkland. But the above deserves not one wasted moment's consideration.

The article also gives space to @HousingNowTO who rightly touts the importance of this proposal from a rental and affordable housing point of view, something on which I am in total concurrence.

Again from the article:

In addition to heritage concerns, the residents’ groups have also raised objections about the density and height of Tyndale Green, its proximity to existing homes, and its potential negative impact on traffic, provision of city services, and the natural heritage of the German Mills Creek Valley the university backs onto.

Of these, only the last has the whiff of legitimacy to me; and I believe that concern can be properly addressed within the context of this proposal.

Space is then given over to Jen Keesmaat who laments the need for the OLT and legal costs........ I agree, and unfortunately, while I do think some of that is self-inflicted by Markee who knew they were proposing
some ideas that were contrary to rules and policies of both the City and TRCA; I think the area of Residents Association has clearly established that had they done everything right, they would still be heading to the OLT.

Lastly, the piece ends on a positive note with a comment from local Councillor Carroll.

“There’s a lot to work out, but I think there’s a way forward,”

I think that accurately represents the take of City Planning here, who very much want this proposal to go forward but just need Markee modify it to address some legitimate concerns (not heritage!).

My overall take is that this one will make it out the other end............but in a slightly different form than today. Depending on how long things drag on w/the lawyers, it may end up shedding some affordable units, which would be unfortunate.
 
Last edited:

allengeorge

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 27, 2019
Messages
1,423
Reaction score
3,386
I find it reprehensible that this RA is trying to block this development by calling it ‘sacrilegious’. This attitude is so tone-deaf and so contrary to the spirit of what Christianity is (supposed to) stand for that it’s laughable. It feels like the lawyer is trying to show that the development is violating a variety of planning rules/by-laws with the hope of overwhelming Markee and stalling the project.

Separately, on a procedural note: can a building or a space be declared heritage simply because a person stayed there? I assume so, and assume it’s a judgement call by a committee?
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
22,217
Reaction score
55,345
Separately, on a procedural note: can a building or a space be declared heritage simply because a person stayed there? I assume so, and assume it’s a judgement call by a committee?

The argument around 'cultural significance' is often used to justify preserving someone's childhood home or the like..........

But I've never heard of preserving a building because someone visited for 3 days!
 

noreallyitsme

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
30
Reaction score
98
I find it reprehensible that this RA is trying to block this development by calling it ‘sacrilegious’. This attitude is so tone-deaf and so contrary to the spirit of what Christianity is (supposed to) stand for that it’s laughable. It feels like the lawyer is trying to show that the development is violating a variety of planning rules/by-laws with the hope of overwhelming Markee and stalling the project.

Separately, on a procedural note: can a building or a space be declared heritage simply because a person stayed there? I assume so, and assume it’s a judgement call by a committee?
I’m getting the distinct feeling these NA’s don’t actually care about any of these things they are raising they are just looking to stop the project outright and will throw everything at it hoping it sticks.

Similar with the Cummer modular housing.

First they were saying it’s unsafe for the neighbourhood, as soon as the city laid out there would be security guards mitigating that risk they changed their tune to destruction of trees and park space.
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
891
Reaction score
2,211
City:
Toronto
I’m getting the distinct feeling these NA’s don’t actually care about any of these things they are raising they are just looking to stop the project outright and will throw everything at it hoping it sticks.

Similar with the Cummer modular housing.

First they were saying it’s unsafe for the neighbourhood, as soon as the city laid out there would be security guards mitigating that risk they changed their tune to destruction of trees and park space.
Yeah, the fact that many of these groups are overlapping in fighting against both "Workforce-Rental Affordable Housing" at Tyndale - and the Modular "Supportive Housing" model at Cummer was something we raised in our deputation to NYCC.

PDF - https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2022/ny/comm/communicationfile-150199.pdf

1654007855560.png
 

HousingNowTO

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 16, 2020
Messages
891
Reaction score
2,211
City:
Toronto
Ben Spurr with a piece on the 'controversy' over this one in today's Star (paywalled at time of posting)

There's also a City Hall opinion column on this example in today's Toronto Star -

 

myself

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 29, 2021
Messages
69
Reaction score
266
As someone who knows some who were part of the working group.. I don't blame Markee at all. The Residents associations were absolutely horrendous towards city staff, other participants, councillors, Markee reps etc.. They didn't even properly read the assignments and essentially repeated the same incorrect information every meeting.

There were people who were part of it who genuinely wanted to improve the proposal and work through issues - the first proposal is never perfect - but RA's hijacked it and ruined it for everyone. Of the members some were real estate agents who sell luxury homes, one individual a senior Ontario bureaucrat, and a handful of Neighbourhood associations. Hardly representative of the area as a whole.

Furthermore, the opposition here are the same groups that firmly oppose 175 Cummer modular housing, yet didn't bat an eye when directly accross the street from 175 Cummer an entire grove of trees were razed for a luxury cul-de-sac.

So yea, totally understand why they went the OLT route.
 

Top