Toronto The Berczy | 41.76m | 13s | Concert | Arcadis

^ If you have a critique of his idea, jaborandi, then by all means, let's hear it. But just calling it "half-baked" doesn't make it so.

My own critique of the idea is that I wonder whether it would survive ten seconds at the OMB.
 
Sir Novelty Fashion said:
^ If you have a critique of his idea, jaborandi, then by all means, let's hear it. But just calling it "half-baked" doesn't make it so.

My own critique of the idea is that I wonder whether it would survive ten seconds at the OMB.
Click to expand...

If it decided to prevent the demolition of occupied buildings when there are empty lots nearby, it could certainly do that.

I don't believe the City has this power. If I am wrong, I would willingly love to be proved so.
 
It was only recently that the city was able to prevent the demolition of historic buildings - and this took decades to achieve.

I too do not believe the city has such authority and would also loved to be proven wrong.
 
So...basically your critique is that you don't think I'm right, but you don't really know?

It's absolutely right that the city would find it difficult to prevent demolition of buildings, at least without the City of Toronto Act. That's not necessary, though. The city merely has to control which sites can be redeveloped. Sure, you can tear down a building, but why would you if you can't build anything to replace it? The city can zone any part of the city any way it wants. It also has to approve every change in zoning, which is required for virtually every large development. An official plan amendment preventing the demolition of buildings in neighbourhoods where a large number of undeveloped lots exist is entirely within the realm of the city's power, especially after the new City of Toronto Act.

AP, the city can prevent redevelopment on virtually any site, unless they're planning to put up a building that's exactly the same size as the one that they're tearing down. The first line of my post was that the city cannot force development on any lot, so obviously it wouldn't inevitably result in development of empty lots. However, if there's a neighbourhood with significant demand for development, and empty lots were the only lots where it's allowed, what do you think would likely happen? I was also not talking about these buildings in particular. I was simply responding to the endlessly repeated point that the city somehow has no power to regulate development on private property.

I'm not even necessarily advocating such a policy, and I think it's probably too interventionist in much of the city. I'm simply trying to dispel this myth that development is somehow inevitable and the city has no power to control it.
 
Jdot said:
Ugh, back to that argument that empty parking lots should be developed first. Need we remind everyone that it is up to individual land owners to propose what they want on land they own, not on land they dont own.....
Click to expand...

That's true to a point. But there is a "greater good" concept to consider. The land owner can't build a toxic waste dump or an incinerator just because he owns the lot. This isn't the 19th century. I believe what's in the best interest of the city and the people outweighs the property rights of a land speculator. Just because someone is wealthy, that does not give him the automatic right to destroy a nice neighbourhood or someone's home. At the same time, I don't think a speculator has the right to sit on a vacant lot for decades if someone could put that lot to better use. There should be "Fallow field" legislation. Let's face it, these lots aren't special to these speculators. It's not as if these lots have been in their families for generations!

I know the street in question is far from being a heritage site, but it is not without its charm. The proposed building is nothing special or unique, so it doesn't warrant special consideration.
Plus with that ugly Cityhome development to the south, I think this street should be left as is.
 
bar1967 said:
Is 8 (Front St) and 11 (Esplanade) stories tall?
Click to expand...

No, they aren't tall. I meant, no one likes tall buildings and development in general, as much as I do! I was just critical of this one project. I like most of the other developments very much.
 
AndreaPalladio said:
Well, no, they can't prevent demolition, except in certain very limited circumstances. Even if they could, that wouldn't necessarily lead to development on emptly lots.

And I can't think of a reason why those low rise, stucco and aluminium framed window buildings at Church and Front shouldn't be demolished for a much better building. Unless for some kitch reason Le Papillion were to be preseved as a memorial to the worst cooking in the city.
Click to expand...

"For a much better building" ? This proposal is just a plain 11 storey condo, not unlike hundreds of others. This could be built anywhere; Mt. Pleasant Road, Merton Street, Scarborough, Markham! The sidewalk is so narrow, the street as well, plus you have that ugly Public Housing project on The Esplanade. And then with London and the L being built; this street, the way it is now, it would be better left as is.

I haven't eaten in Le Papillon in years, but I thought it was an upscale restaurant? :-/
 
unimaginative2 said:
So...basically your critique is that you don't think I'm right, but you don't really know?

It's absolutely right that the city would find it difficult to prevent demolition of buildings, at least without the City of Toronto Act. That's not necessary, though. The city merely has to control which sites can be redeveloped. Sure, you can tear down a building, but why would you if you can't build anything to replace it? The city can zone any part of the city any way it wants. It also has to approve every change in zoning, which is required for virtually every large development. An official plan amendment preventing the demolition of buildings in neighbourhoods where a large number of undeveloped lots exist is entirely within the realm of the city's power, especially after the new City of Toronto Act.

AP, the city can prevent redevelopment on virtually any site, unless they're planning to put up a building that's exactly the same size as the one that they're tearing down. The first line of my post was that the city cannot force development on any lot, so obviously it wouldn't inevitably result in development of empty lots. However, if there's a neighbourhood with significant demand for development, and empty lots were the only lots where it's allowed, what do you think would likely happen? I was also not talking about these buildings in particular. I was simply responding to the endlessly repeated point that the city somehow has no power to regulate development on private property.

I'm not even necessarily advocating such a policy, and I think it's probably too interventionist in much of the city. I'm simply trying to dispel this myth that development is somehow inevitable and the city has no power to control it.
Click to expand...


I think the city should be allowed to force land owners / speculators to develop a vacant lot or sell it to someone, for the fair price, if someone else is willing to develop that lot. As I said earlier, it's not as if these vacant lots have been in their families since the 1790's; these speculators buy lots like you and I buy newspapers. The property means nothing to them; it's just land speculation, which does more harm than good.

That being said, I think some huge tracts of land should be held in reserve in case we get the Olympics in 2028 or 2032. I would like to have seen the West Donlands held in reserve for that! :-/
 
fred said:
Very true. :-(
Click to expand...

Just to clarrify, the building that currently stands at Church and Front is not an old building at all. It was built in the 60's and is made to look old thanks to some nifty fake arched window painting.

The building on the Esplanade (Finn MaCool's) though is old, and will have its facade incorporated into the design on the podium. That leaves the Keg and Le Papillion. Hardly worth saving a half city block for.
 
"I think the city should be allowed to force land owners / speculators to develop a vacant lot or sell it to someone, for the fair price, if someone else is willing to develop that lot. As I said earlier, it's not as if these vacant lots have been in their families since the 1790's; these speculators buy lots like you and I buy newspapers. The property means nothing to them; it's just land speculation, which does more harm than good."

This sentiment is fairly common but frankly it seeks to impair the very mechanisms that create healthy vibrant human settlements. I believe in some heritage preservation and the fostering of a culture that values the past as it looks to the future. But the very act of initiative, destruction, churning, good mistakes and bad mistakes caused by land speculation and development is the lifeblood of urban regeneration.
 
unimaginative2 said:
AP, the city can prevent redevelopment on virtually any site, unless they're planning to put up a building that's exactly the same size as the one that they're tearing down. The first line of my post was that the city cannot force development on any lot, so obviously it wouldn't inevitably result in development of empty lots. However, if there's a neighbourhood with significant demand for development, and empty lots were the only lots where it's allowed, what do you think would likely happen? I was also not talking about these buildings in particular. I was simply responding to the endlessly repeated point that the city somehow has no power to regulate development on private property.
Click to expand...

On in very limited circumstances, and even then, they have to be fair in their decision making. Infringing someone's rights with respect to their property in order to favour another property owner wouldn't pass any fairness test.
 
fred said:
"For a much better building" ? This proposal is just a plain 11 storey condo, not unlike hundreds of others. This could be built anywhere; Mt. Pleasant Road, Merton Street, Scarborough, Markham! The sidewalk is so narrow, the street as well, plus you have that ugly Public Housing project on The Esplanade. And then with London and the L being built; this street, the way it is now, it would be better left as is.

I haven't eaten in Le Papillon in years, but I thought it was an upscale restaurant? :-/
Click to expand...


Ah, someone who dislikes the poor enough to denegrate their homes in not one but two posts, and who thinks Le Papillion is upscale. Quite the urban aesthete.
 
I wonder how Le Papillon and many of the other restaurants in the area are doing since the Opera Company and the Ballet moved out of the Sony Centre. The prices at Le Papillon were certainly aimed at a well-heeled crowd, and that might have made it seem upscale, but I do agree that what was delivered to your table in return was not up to scratch. If that creperie had a little more direct competition, the ingredients and the execution might improve, but without it I believe the management has been made complacent. We don't really get good crepes in this city; you have to drive somewhat to the east for that. That said I do like the ramshackle oldness of Market Street, but I'm not that nostalgic about it that I'll be gutted if it gets redeveloped. I'd like to see something both a bit more daring but appropriately restrained built at this site.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top