Unless I miss my guess, Pinnacle is simply starting the OMB stop watch. Since the "area plan" won't be ready for quite some time, Pinnacle is trying to force their hand or take their chances at the OMB. The cost of carrying this property while the city isn't responsive is huge. I don't blame Pinnacle for lighting a fire under their butts.
 
You're so pro developers. City planners are only looking out for the community's best interest. The name behind Pinnacle makes Rob Ford a decent, respectable man.
 
maestro said:
City planners are only looking out for the community's best interest.
Click to expand...

Oh im sure, height will be the main issue with little mention of the new boulevard
...by the way, isn't the community down there none other than condo dwellers, that are worried about their unobstructed views?

The site is proposed to be divided into two blocks by an eastern 27 metre wide extension of Harbour Street. On the south block, the application proposes to retain and add 10 storeys to the existing Toronto Star building and also develop an attached 70-storey hotel/residential building and a 40-storey office building connected with a 6-storey podium. On the north block, four new residential towers are proposed with heights of 75, 80, 80 and 88 storeys with an 8-storey podium for residential, retail and commercial uses
 
There's usually a good reason behind height being an issue. Dismissing it as NIMBYism is usually flagrant ignorism. Lot's of fans in forum land of height and skyline that haven't picked up a book. Of course, I'm not talking about you.
 
...by the way, isn't the community down there none other than condo dwellers, that are worried about their unobstructed views?
Click to expand...

No there are plenty of people in the area (especially north of the rail corridor) that will need to deal with traffic, lack of schools etc. You do know people in the real world have needs besides views, or tall buildings for that matter.
 
CityPlaceN1 said:
No there are plenty of people in the area (especially north of the rail corridor) that will need to deal with traffic, lack of schools etc. You do know people in the real world have needs besides views, or tall buildings for that matter.
Click to expand...

So, now they are worried about schools? They bought a one bedroom apartment downtown - and now that another project is proposed, schools are an issue? One bedroom condos do not generally house growing families so the school issue can't be that big.

Traffic? The whole idea of building connected to the PATH was so there would not be a huge impact on traffic.
Alternatively these people would live in the suburbs which would contribute to sprawl and traffic congestion.
The whole idea of downtown intensification is to reduce traffic and make transit more efficient. This project will do just that - it's a perfect downtown project.
 
maestro said:
You're so pro developers. City planners are only looking out for the community's best interest. The name behind Pinnacle makes Rob Ford a decent, respectable man.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with you but with the planning department short staffed and city council hamstrung by vicious cost cutting and distracted by mayoral nonsense, developers have to find a way to get things moving. If planning can't move forward then i agree with them forcing the issue.


According to the recent report from staff dated February 7, "Toronto and East York Community Council considered a preliminary report on the rezoning application in June 2013." That was 7 months ago and all they have determined so far is they think an Official Plan Ammendment is required as well. 7 months and they are virtually no where.
 
Last edited:
guys buildings in other cities are approved within 6-8 months and in Toronto it takes forever to get an approval.
 
maestro said:
You're so pro developers. City planners are only looking out for the community's best interest. The name behind Pinnacle makes Rob Ford a decent, respectable man.
Click to expand...

In my career, I've seen one too many city planners with a chip on their shoulder when dealing with developers. They're seen collectively as rich, greedy and evil. High density developments are seen as too much profit potential and must be paired down. I've also seen planners in smaller communities go out of their way to be uncooperative to harm and slow developers. What ends up happening is the cookie cutter homebuilders with deep pockets win their lawsuits while the small startup or innovative developer trying to do downtown infill or something else innovative gets put out of business.

It's ironic because these same planners complain about NIMBY community groups and tea party politicians trying to undermine the planning process. The plan for traditional main street designs and get frustrated when developers don't follow the plan. Often because they have no training or experience in land economics. The plans make for pretty renderings but never materialize.

I am pro development because I believe developers and well planned and thriving cities are not mutually exclusive. Had Toronto not been building 15,000 condo units a year, the population growth and jobs would be pushed to where supply is available, sprawl in the suburbs.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
I don't necessarily disagree with you but with the planning department short staffed and city council hamstrung by vicious cost cutting and distracted by mayoral nonsense, developers have to find a way to get things moving. If planning can't move forward then i agree with them forcing the issue.


According to the recent report from staff dated February 7, "Toronto and East York Community Council considered a preliminary report on the rezoning application in June 2013." That was 7 months ago and all they have determined so far is they think an Official Plan Ammendment is required as well. 7 months and they are virtually no where.
Click to expand...

Everyone is under-staffed everywhere (or so they will tell you). Possibly the Planners would also tell you they are required to waste too much time with red tape.
 
CityPlaceN1 said:
No there are plenty of people in the area (especially north of the rail corridor) that will need to deal with traffic, lack of schools etc. You do know people in the real world have needs besides views, or tall buildings for that matter.
Click to expand...

What does "deal with traffic" mean? Please explain. Are you referring to the pedestrian traffic? Because with more people walking to work rather than driving from suburbs foot traffic will increase. The solution to a lack of schools, if there is one, is to build a school. Why are you making this so complicated?
 
buildup said:
What does "deal with traffic" mean? Please explain. Are you referring to the pedestrian traffic? Because with more people walking to work rather than driving from suburbs foot traffic will increase. The solution to a lack of schools, if there is one, is to build a school. Why are you making this so complicated?
Click to expand...

It means both pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

King St is a traffic gridlock at peak time as well at night time to the point it will take up to 20 minutes to go from University to Spadina.

By rights anything these days for new buildings in the core, parking must be 0-25% of the units in the building. If you need a car, rent one like I do.

Transit as it is now, is poor and that is caused by traffic along the route.

Left hand turning is the biggest problem as few cars can only make a turn if they can on a green and have the right to do so.

Pedestrian traffic impedes the turning of vehicles traffic regardless which way. More feet traffic will put more pressure on intersections with small sidewalk as well for traffic.

Because of the increase of residents with children, there is a lack of space in schools for these new residents let alone if a school exist in the area in the first place. City Place is a good example at this time for schools.

The width of sidewalks become an issue to the point there is no room for people. Good example is the south side of King St from John to Spadina because of all the patios that are there now that didn't exist when the sidewalks were first built. The only way to deal with that issue is to remove the on street parking and turn it over to wider sidewalks or sidewalk and a bike lane. We hear the issue surround removing parking, but at the end of the day it must happen.

Today traffic issue is caused by the suburb people both in Toronto and out side of it. On average, about 650 cars per hour per lane get though an intersection in the core at the best of times.

King St was to have an ROW for the streetcars, but the theater folks kill it. King is supposed to have an HOV lane at peak time, because it not enforce, it use as a normal lane.

Traffic is an issue for this area as well for other areas as there is "NO REAL TRANSIT SYSTEM IN PLACE" to get people in and out of the area fast enough.
 
drum118 said:
It means both pedestrian and vehicle traffic.

King St is a traffic gridlock at peak time as well at night time to the point it will take up to 20 minutes to go from University to Spadina.

By rights anything these days for new buildings in the core, parking must be 0-25% of the units in the building. If you need a car, rent one like I do.

Transit as it is now, is poor and that is caused by traffic along the route.

Left hand turning is the biggest problem as few cars can only make a turn if they can on a green and have the right to do so.

Pedestrian traffic impedes the turning of vehicles traffic regardless which way. More feet traffic will put more pressure on intersections with small sidewalk as well for traffic.

Because of the increase of residents with children, there is a lack of space in schools for these new residents let alone if a school exist in the area in the first place. City Place is a good example at this time for schools.

The width of sidewalks become an issue to the point there is no room for people. Good example is the south side of King St from John to Spadina because of all the patios that are there now that didn't exist when the sidewalks were first built. The only way to deal with that issue is to remove the on street parking and turn it over to wider sidewalks or sidewalk and a bike lane. We hear the issue surround removing parking, but at the end of the day it must happen.

Today traffic issue is caused by the suburb people both in Toronto and out side of it. On average, about 650 cars per hour per lane get though an intersection in the core at the best of times.

King St was to have an ROW for the streetcars, but the theater folks kill it. King is supposed to have an HOV lane at peak time, because it not enforce, it use as a normal lane.

Traffic is an issue for this area as well for other areas as there is "NO REAL TRANSIT SYSTEM IN PLACE" to get people in and out of the area fast enough.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of this is relevant to my comment.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top