Toronto Brant Park | 35.36m | 11s | Lamb Dev Corp | a—A

grey said:
Pro-development, no matter the cost.

Keep you're liberral hands off are wallet's!!! :rolleyes::cool:


See all this stuff about building neighbourhoods in an intelligent manner, thoughtfully researching precedent and context and addressing community concerns? This is the bullshit he's talking about. It's little more than bureaucracy standing in the way of private enterprise. Something something taxpayers.
Click to expand...

Ohh my oh my..to some being pro-development in this city is a sin, Come-on grow-up

For example.....Here are two recent well planned projects in the same hood that wouldnt even get past the drawings if people like the above and a couple of other OMB trash-talkers had there way...no matter what design, just because of the sake of exceeding a bit of height....

Context King West, 620 King St W, proposed construction of an 18-storey condominium apartment building containing 230 residential units. http://contextkingwest.ca
Waddingtons 111 Bathurst St, proposed construction of a condominium building..17 storeys;
http://www.twginteractive.com/111Bat...11Bathurst.pdf
 
Hahaha, good job not linking the threads for those projects because they completely destroy your argument.

- 620 King is universally loved.
- For 111 Bathurst, gristle explained his reasons for having different opinions about different projects, but you don't even try to argue, you just spit out tired phrases and saying they're "afraid of height" or they're "flip-flopping" and garnish it with a series of smiley icons to make it look like you're just trolling (because you can't support your arguments).
 
Last edited:
I'd also like to know who is anti-development. Aside from NIMBY reactions to particular projects, I rarely encounter such a perspective. Most people, however, care about the quality of what is built and what it contributes to the city.
 
Automation Gallery said:
For example.....Here are two recent well planned projects in the same hood that wouldnt even get past the drawings if people like the above and a couple of other OMB trash-talkers had there way...no matter what design, just because of the sake of exceeding a bit of height....
Click to expand...

Expanding on what grey accurately noted, both the projects you mention had community involvement. In fact, Context actively sought out feedback on a number of occasions from members of the community. They wanted to put up a building that contributed to the fabric of the neighbourhood. They wanted to listen. There was no reason to even think of the OMB or to have idiotic debates about additional height. As for 111 Bathurst, they added in second floor office component in order to maximize commercial space for the area, because we want to preserve mixed uses for our neighbourhood.

As mentioned, Brant Park received a positive response. It's rejection had nothing to do with height because there is no issue with height (except maybe for you). The rejection was founded on a technical interpretation of what constitutes "minor" variances in the face of so many requested variances. The developer is not intending to change the design.
 
gristle said:
Expanding on what grey accurately noted, both the projects you mention had community involvement. In fact, Context actively sought out feedback on a number of occasions from members of the community. They wanted to put up a building that contributed to the fabric of the neighbourhood. They wanted to listen. There was no reason to even think of the OMB or to have idiotic debates about additional height. As for 111 Bathurst, they added in second floor office component in order to maximize commercial space for the area, because we want to preserve mixed uses for our neighbourhood.

As mentioned, Brant Park received a positive response. It's rejection had nothing to do with height because there is no issue with height (except maybe for you). The rejection was founded on a technical interpretation of what constitutes "minor" variances in the face of so many requested variances. The developer is not intending to change the design.
Click to expand...

Listen gristle, after 1700 posts you cant hide that you dislike tall buildings in this city, you may go on and on about geting rid of the OMB and good city planning... but if its tall, it cant be good, Hey we both want to see the best for this city, except unfortunately we are at complete odds
Anyways getting back at this development...its kind of nice, and will add some spark to this very lonely part of the hood.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Listen gristle, after 1700 posts you cant hide that you dislike tall buildings in this city, you may go on and on about geting rid of the OMB and good city planning... but if its tall, it cant be good, Hey we both want to see the best for this city, except unfortunately we are at complete odds
Click to expand...

I've noted how you have completely avoided the content of both grey's post, as well as mine. And onto your diversion you go.

First AG, for your information, only a small fraction of my 1700 posts have dealt with towers. Clearly you haven't been reading them very closely. I'm not surprised. Second, I don't dislike tall towers, I'm just not a tower foamer like you. I dislike poorly situated buildings that get put up solely because developers have a means to overcome things like well-though out city planning objectives. I dislike poorly-designed towers - no matter how tall they are. I dislike the attitude that tall is good - no matter what. I find that kind of thinking one dimensional. I dislike out-of-date semi-judicial bodies like the OMB that are often staffed by people with no planning background who make decisions on the basis of precedent and not good planning principles. I think that is bad for a rapidly growing city like Toronto. We get stick with bad decisions permanently. Beyond that, show me a well-situated, nicely designed tower, and I'm probably going to like it.

So your opinion of what I like or dislike is, of course, uninformed. With that said, maybe now you can address grey's comments in post #92. Can you actually construct a rational response?
 
Some new renderings of the widened building.

Looks great, though some of the views looks pretty distorted:
NORM-LI-AG+I-120305_view-west.jpg

NORM-LI-AG+I-120203_phase2-3.jpg

NORM-LI-AG+I-120301_from-park.jpg

NORM-LI-AG+I-120301_long-elev-1024x576.jpg

NORM-LI-AG+I-120304_aerial-1024x768.jpg
 
I agree, but quite a nice looking building. I just hope they stick with white cladding.
 
White roofs are okay too I believe. They reflect sunlight back up instead of adding to the urban heat island by absorbing it.

42
 
interchange42 said:
White roofs are okay too I believe. They reflect sunlight back up instead of adding to the urban heat island by absorbing it.

42
Click to expand...

White is the new green.

In Georgia you can get a property tax break if your home has a white roof (at least that was the policy when I was there).
 
greenleaf said:
White is the new green.

In Georgia you can get a property tax break if your home has a white roof (at least that was the policy when I was there).
Click to expand...

My neighbour and I had a light grey roof - rather than black - put on our semis last fall, which was the closest we could find. No property tax break, though!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top