1291gerrard-01.jpg


While not technically the same, they're spiritual cousins. It could be named 'The Residences of the Toronto East Detention Centre, East'. Fits with the tenor of the time.
 
View attachment 638404

While not technically the same, they're spiritual cousins. It could be named 'The Residences of the Toronto East Detention Centre, East'. Fits with the tenor of the time.
The worst thing about that is that the "residence" on the right has better massing and far more consistent in design... >.<
 
Attended the (in-person) public meeting last-night, so you didn’t have to…

IMG_2879.jpeg


IMG_2881.jpeg


‘twas a NIMBY-Homeowner gong-show of a meeting, that regularly dissolved into angry-shouts from the audience… etc.

IMG_2882.jpeg


Was attending to hear about the Rental Tenure, “Rental Replacement” — and additional “Affordable Rental” opportunities via the Community Benefit Charges.

Mostly, the NIMBY remarks were from Homeowners on RICHARD STREET shouting about —

1.) Massing / Height
2.) Overlook / Privacy
3.) Parking

IMG_2890.jpeg


…the local Councillor (Fletcher) tried to reel things back-in once the meeting was totally “off-the-rails” — but essentially her comments to appease the crowd were variations on the theme of “Blame Doug Ford”, etc.

SUD Group has other sites in the area that I expect they will advance long before this one (eg. the Murphy’s Law site at Queen & Kingston Road).

NOTE : There’s one “hold out” business (located exactly on the south-east corner of Greenwood & Gerrard) — and it would make a much more rational site to develop if they were able to add that parcel into this redevelopment-proposal.
 
…the local Councillor (Fletcher) tried to reel things back-in once the meeting was totally “off-the-rails” — but essentially her comments to appease the crowd were variations on the theme of “Blame Doug Ford”, etc.

SUD Group has other sites in the area that I expect they will advance long before this one (eg. the Murphy’s Law site at Queen & Kingston Road).

NOTE : There’s one “hold out” business (located exactly on the south-east corner of Greenwood & Gerrard) — and it would make a much more rational site to develop if they were able to add that parcel into this redevelopment-proposal.

As always, my thanks and UT's too for abiding such affairs.

Sud, unfortunately, have a terrible track record as of late.............

Queen/Kingston has languished for years and years, there's been little to no communication with the community on that........... meanwhile, this site, had an attractive design that was fairly easy to defend, and Sud suddenly, for no obvious reason scraps that in favour of this completely ugly, irredeemable detritus.

I'm in favour of what was proposed, and take no issue w/12s here............

Doubtless there was opposition to the last iteration........and you can't please everyone.......but being a company with bad communication skills and worse architectural taste certainly doesn't make the ride any easier.
 
Last edited:
…the local Councillor (Fletcher) tried to reel things back-in once the meeting was totally “off-the-rails” — but essentially her comments to appease the crowd were variations on the theme of “Blame Doug Ford”, etc.
Local area needs to move on from Fletcher. It's clear she's no longer a good fit for office and in what constituents need.
 
Local area needs to move on from Fletcher. It's clear she's no longer a good fit for office and in what constituents need.

It really does.

She's obstructing carsharing, crosswalks, cycle tracks, green infrastructure......and so much more.

She's worse than just the deferral queen............she's the killer of progressive policy.
 
Oh, I only wish I'd known about the meeting so I could have yelled at them about how stupidly ugly the proposal is. If you go to the start of this thread, you can see that there was immediate support and positive response to the original proposal. That would have balanced the NIMBY response in a public meeting but nobody is going to stick up for the current proposal, so the NIMBYs got free reign.
 

Back
Top