isaidso said:
I guess it bears repeating: People are so used to how slow things move in this city that they think all is fine. Perhaps you're too close to the industry to notice how bureaucratic it is. 5 years is ridiculous. That someone is arguing that this is satisfactory speaks volumes.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what's a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...

I guess to some 5 years is nothing,
live where i do and wait 5 to 7 years for a small new bridge that is planned @ lower Dufferin street over top the railroad corridor, let me know if that is fair?
i was just in Europe where the same gets planned and built in 6-12 months, ......again this city is great at milking it, with study after study
 
Automation Gallery said:
I guess to some 5 years is nothing,
live where i do and wait 5 to 7 years for a small new bridge that is planned @ lower Dufferin street over top the railroad corridor, let me know if that is fair?
i was just in Europe where the same gets planned and built in 6-12 months, ......again this city is great at milking it, with study after study
Click to expand...

Given the stat of our transit system, you're completely right. So many useless decision makers in this city.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I guess to some 5 years is nothing,
live where i do and wait 5 to 7 years for a small new bridge that is planned @ lower Dufferin street over top the railroad corridor, let me know if that is fair?
i was just in Europe where the same gets planned and built in 6-12 months, ......again this city is great at milking it, with study after study
Click to expand...

Yawn. I'm sure you'll have nothing to say when it takes 8 to 10 years to construct this super tall tower. Afterall, you worship developers like gods.

This development when first proposed grossly exceeded what was allowed and what was reasonable. That's what bogged down this proposal for 5 years. There have been hundreds of reasonable proposals that got passed in 1/5th the time. I expect your European anecdote needed only some minor changes over rewriting planning policy.

Like I said, there are streamlined planning policies out there where developers don't try to rewrite planning policy because they know their proposal would be immediately rejected. I don't think you would like that here. Developers probably would. The powerful equity funds owning most of downtown Toronto and financing most of the construction wouldn't.

How long was Transbay in planning? 20 years?
 
isaidso said:
I guess it bears repeating: People are so used to how slow things move in this city that they think all is fine. Perhaps you're too close to the industry to notice how bureaucratic it is. 5 years is ridiculous. That someone is arguing that this is satisfactory speaks volumes.

We will just have to agree to disagree on what's a reasonable amount of time.
Click to expand...

I have made countless posts about adopting a stronger planning policy that allows more development to avoid going through rezoning and removes the insanity (such as the original proposal) that just wastes everyone's time. 5 years is not a lot of time for the system we have and the ridiculous proposal put forth by Pinnacle. I suspect you'll disagree that seven towers averaging well about 200 metres with minimal distances and 5000 units on this site wasn't ridiculous so that's all I have to say to you.
 
I personally don't see why this proposal is ridiculous.

You can list all the reasons you feel make it ridiculous, but you'd be wasting your time.
 
maestro said:
Yawn. I'm sure you'll have nothing to say when it takes 8 to 10 years to construct this super tall tower. Afterall, you worship developers like gods.

This development when first proposed grossly exceeded what was allowed and what was reasonable. That's what bogged down this proposal for 5 years. There have been hundreds of reasonable proposals that got passed in 1/5th the time. I expect your European anecdote needed only some minor changes over rewriting planning policy.

Like I said, there are streamlined planning policies out there where developers don't try to rewrite planning policy because they know their proposal would be immediately rejected. I don't think you would like that here. Developers probably would. The powerful equity funds owning most of downtown Toronto and financing most of the construction wouldn't.

How long was Transbay in planning? 20 years?
Click to expand...

Well theres talking out your ass and then theres this guy.....

Go move to China or Dubai, Saudi, etc. if you want quick processed pushed through the gaunlet buildings that are passed before actually consideration is made into the effects of what its going to do to the area.

Look at Shanghai Tower - Sure it was built, but not without a complete shut down due to cracking foundations and reeneingeering but hey, lets just buildem, figure it out after.... Or Dubai, where they build with Non-Fire rated materials - Addison Hotel on New Years - 66 Story Facade goes up in flames because of an apparent Candle.

Cant fix stupid.....
 
So in other words, you are saying that you need time to build it right?..that's what they want you to believe in this city:eek: and all fiction in this modern world
 
Of course it takes time and it should. However are material considerations really what this city discusses so much? Or is it fear of density, height, vision and shadowing concerns? I think it is good to have a discussion, and to plan things on a larger scale. It really seems from the outside though that things are often very heavy handed, and ultimately end up mediocre as a reflection.
Perhaps this truly is not the case. Some of you on the inside I'm sure would beg to differ. Maybe its different each project.
I think many people (at least myself) who only get a glimpse at these processes from the outside, feel like the more talking/ studying/ compromising the more blah things end up.

?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Less build - but more planning to build. Besides, what's the rush in this particular case?

AoD
Click to expand...

Also good points.

There are lots of examples of both a broken development planning process and an overly burdensome bureaucracy one can point to, but no one's presented any evidence that this particular development is emblematic of either of those things. And that reality is making this thread pretty annoying.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top