UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
2,839
Reaction score
3,312
"Weren't you just protesting about the Nimby's who wanted to throw a wrench into this project, Uta?"

...there's a difference from "residence" complaining about how the height that would "obstruct" their view, when there really isn't any around in the immediate area that would be truly effected by this. And demonstratively so. Versus, tearing down something iconic to replace it with something that's not really that iconic at all. I mean, couldn't the U of T find a surface parking lot somewhere to throw this up on?

It seems that peeps are all up in arms over this for entirely the wrong reasons; straining at the height gnats, while letting the heritage elephant lumber by.

...sorry for the soapbox rant though. :(
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,611
Reaction score
21,642
TPB had a garbage vote about a 'Cultural Significance Study' or some other make-work project for this on Tuesday. Not sure how much of a wrench that can put in this as it's endorsed by Planning, but as they and HPS are separate departments, I'd imagine it could delay.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,783
Reaction score
32,603
TPB had a garbage vote about a 'Cultural Significance Study' or some other make-work project for this on Tuesday. Not sure how much of a wrench that can put in this as it's endorsed by Planning, but as they and HPS are separate departments, I'd imagine it could delay.

I saw Alex B's rant about that.

I feel so conflicted.

I see real problems w/this proposal as is ( I want to like it, but it could and should be so much better, and/or done as is, but on another site); but I thought many of the arguments at TPB were misguided to put it charitably.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
30,894
Reaction score
22,968
City:
Toronto
I wonder how much resources they will pull into this study over other at risk properties. :rolleyes: It makes cries of "we don't have enough resources" as an excuse sounds hollow.

AoD
 

ProjectEnd

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
11,611
Reaction score
21,642
I saw Alex B's rant about that.

I feel so conflicted.

I see real problems w/this proposal as is ( I want to like it, but it could and should be so much better, and/or done as is, but on another site); but I thought many of the arguments at TPB were misguided to put it charitably.
Pressure from outside groups and various City departments has only had the effect of making this thing worse over the past year. TPB's real goal is to make this not happen at all.
 

greenleaf

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 17, 2007
Messages
2,605
Reaction score
1,508

“No one looked at Queen’s Park,” when doing other heritage evaluations, Layton says. “It would be a shame if we really are altered that landscape without some serious consideration as to what we wanted it to become.”

planning to return the street to two lanes too?

s0372_ss0052_it1714.jpg
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,783
Reaction score
32,603
“No one looked at Queen’s Park,” when doing other heritage evaluations, Layton says. “It would be a shame if we really are altered that landscape without some serious consideration as to what we wanted it to become.”

planning to return the street to two lanes too?

s0372_ss0052_it1714.jpg

Well now, irrespective of the outcome w/this building, I'm entirely in favour of that road configuration! Give me {and the road) back its trees! (with room to grow to majestic heights)
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,783
Reaction score
32,603
Those maturing street trees must have been beautiful, and we never got trees like them again despite many attempts to plant trees along University Avenue. Queen's Park would be incredible as a linear park.

A photo of those street trees, before the big chop.

From the Toronto Archives: F1244, It. 1140 (1) via https://tayloronhistory.com/tag/royal-ontario-museum-toronto/

1604168494815.png


As to getting trees to grow like that again.

It can be done.

Give them back similar conditions, less salt, more light, more room to grow, more soil volume.
 
Last edited:

saynotofaux

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 11, 2011
Messages
210
Reaction score
375
I hope the University appeals this application to LPAT, because they will subpoena staff to testify in their favour and will in all likelihood prevail. Not unexpectedly, the opposition here consists almost exclusively of rich, decaying, blustering geriatrics that monopolize their Residents' Assocations (several of which, like Harbord Village, are not even close to this development site), purport to speak for thousands of households, and have no objectively intelligent criticism of this proposal. A sad state of affairs.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
15,783
Reaction score
32,603
I think an MZO is a much more likely outcome (and one that I would wholeheartedly support at this point) if these shenanigans continue on.

I may find some of the arguments made at TPB to be.......hmm, problematic.

But I think consistency in positions is terribly important.

I oppose MZO's made to arbitrarily override the wishes of City Council on the whims of a vexatious Provincial government.

I think there's room for them to exist, but in very tightly prescribed circumstances; elsewise, one must live w/good whims and bad.

For better or worse, it's City Council's job to address this issue; and there is already a means of appeal (LPAT)

I can't support an MZO here because some of the local opposition to the project is irksome. That's insufficient cause for a very heavy-handed power.

I hasten to add. I remain persuaded that this is a nice building; but its massing really is intrusive on this site, and the proposed landscape plan is downright ugly and completely wrong in the context.

I feel very mixed on it going forward.

I don't wish to align myself with those who maybe Nimby and in any event marshall some dubious arguments in service of their cause.

But neither do I wish to be left with something that is a poor fit for the site in its current form; and frankly, may not be fixable.

It's already been downsized.

I don't really think that's the answer here.

I'm of the view that removing the existing faculty of Music building would probably be the way to go.

Freeing up enough land to do something much less overbearing on the site, while still intensifying .

But that's me. I'm also spending my Alma Mater's money at a very good clip; on the other hand..........better me than them after that total hash of a restoration project at UC!
 

Top