Wow. I haven't been following OLT rulings as closely lately, but this is the first loss I can remember in the core in quite some time.
 
ADRM said:
Wow. I haven't been following OLT rulings as closely lately, but this is the first loss I can remember in the core in quite some time.
Click to expand...

66 Wellesley directly across the street, in 2021:

66 Wellesley Street East | 101.78m | 31s | ONE Properties | S9

The original proposal was WAY too aggressive, and at that time they did NOT own the existing apartment building to the west. They still don't even own the laneway that they were trying to build on. Your theory seems to be totally flawed. The City (IMHO) was totally right to reject the original...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
ADRM said:
Wow. I haven't been following OLT rulings as closely lately, but this is the first loss I can remember in the core in quite some time.
Click to expand...
This particular neighborhood has a number of vocal residents living in it who are opposed to development of any kind.
Their neighborhood association (the CWNA) crowdfunded some money, hired a lawyer, and enthusiastically fought against this proposal.
Never mind that the intersection it sits on could desperately use a refresh to deter the rampant drug use and other unsavory activity that frequently happens at its doorsteps.
Or, that this project wasn't ever going to get built in the first place.
 
citylights said:
This particular neighborhood has a number of vocal residents living in it who are opposed to development of any kind.
Their neighborhood association (the CWNA) crowdfunded some money, hired a lawyer, and enthusiastically fought against this proposal.
Never mind that the intersection it sits on could desperately use a refresh to deter the rampant drug use and other unsavory activity that frequently happens at its doorsteps.
Or, that this project wasn't ever going to get built in the first place.
Click to expand...
Oh man, those sneaky gays who don't want every single LGBTQ space in the City destroyed in the name of developer profits :rolleyes: How dare they!
 
TossYourJacket said:
Oh man, those sneaky gays who don't want every single LGBTQ space in the City destroyed in the name of developer profits :rolleyes: How dare they!
Click to expand...
You've expressed a common viewpoint -- and I've never quite understood it.
I think that argument would have more merit if we were talking about a site along Church in between Wellesley and Alexander where there are a number of local establishments that have greater relevance to the community.
But, it's hard to see how replacing an old dilapidated retail space that currently houses a Pizza Pizza, two vacant storefronts, a bakery and a convenience store would destroy the neighborhood.
It would more likely offer a huge improvement with better retail opportunities for businesses that could bolster the area once complete.
Also, allow more people to live in and contribute to this part of the city, perhaps making it an even more vibrant place.
 
citylights said:
You've expressed a common viewpoint -- and I've never quite understood it.
I think that argument would have more merit if we were talking about a site along Church in between Wellesley and Alexander where there are a number of local establishments that have greater relevance to the community.
But, it's hard to see how replacing an old dilapidated retail space that currently houses a Pizza Pizza, two vacant storefronts, a bakery and a convenience store would destroy the neighborhood.
It would more likely offer a huge improvement with better retail opportunities for businesses that could bolster the area once complete.
Also, allow more people to live in and contribute to this part of the city, perhaps making it an even more vibrant place.
Click to expand...
No one is saying no development in the Village, the City is saying no tower development- which is reasonable. As per the decision: "The built form, with its narrow shops, human scale, shadow-protected gathering spaces is not the culture, it’s what enables the culture."

You allow a tower on this site and it sets a planning precedent for the entire Village. From the decision: "If a tower is allowed here, it is certain that other developments within the village (most immediately Cruz & Tango development) will rely on it to support their applications. If this development is approved and becomes part of the planned context, the carefully planned framework designed to protect one of the most unique neighborhoods in the City will be completely undermined."

"Better retail opportunities"- better for who? the only ones who can afford shiny new retail space are giant chains/ banks. The area would become indistinguishable from any other part of the City. The argument that massive condos are the solution to remedy dilapidated parts of the Village doesn't make sense to me. If that were true, then the numerous new condos built within a 2 minute walk (adding the customer base/ density) would have helped.
 
If the City can force midrises to have a ziggurat shape to avoid casting shade on the backyards of a half-dozen NIMBYs, then surely it would be justified in preserving sunshine and a high quality public realm in the community spaces of a marginalized population.
 
Koops65 said:
It seems jimbrook wants the Village to stay the same, in perpetuity... no changes... EVER! Perhaps it could eventually become a museum?
Click to expand...
Not sure how this is your takeaway from my post. I didn't realize 'no tower development' meant no development whatsoever. Have you never heard of a midrise building lol?

Kingsett screwed up, made a bad business decision, tried to pretend they were one with the community by offering community space for the 519 and subsequently taking it away, and then wanted approval to break every single existing policy in place. Got the outcome they should've expected.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top