Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners

Ottawan said:
Just as speculation or a hypothetical, as I did not personally witness the demolition, but if it was loud with pieces visibly flying off into the sidewalk area such that a reasonable pedestrian might think "I should really take a different route" but instead an individual ignored the visible danger and walked along that sidewalk and was hit by a falling piece of concrete, they would be partly at fault for their injury. Probably not a large part - the apportionment might be 90% some combination of the developer/contractor/individual tradesperson's fault and 10% the pedestrian, but the pedestrian would share a degree of the blame and lose out on compensation to the degree that it was their fault.
Click to expand...

That right lane on Yonge wasn't closed when I passed the site. I assume the photo on the previous page was taken later in the day once the city got wind and possibly had traffic close the lane. I see your point but, a drunk driver will be always at fault whether or not a pedestrian jaywalks out in front of car without looking to see the street is clear.
 
Ironic, it's the NIMBYs that make me think of Rob Ford.

For some reason residents of tall buildings in the area that own cars think they have the right to traffic free roads near them simply because "they were there first".

To the poster earlier that said they live in the area and how this doesn't benefit you at all.. please tell me how where you are living has benefitted others in this neighborhood?
 
You're flip flopping all over the place. What exactly has the rush to demo potential heritage elements without the necessary permits in any way related to the concerns in the Uptown Residences?

My reference to Ford Nation is their belief that city hall is chock full of waste created by self interests of the left leaning representatives. The reality is they are much better at curbing waste than any of our large corporations.

What exactly is anti-development about city hall? There are few communities that have approved as many tall towers as they have this past decade. They have also allowed significantly larger developments to be built in many established areas of the city. Try doing that in just about any other city. Let's not forget, The city has sided with the developer and not the Uptown Residence's appeal.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Let's not BS here - there is acknowledgement that he has the right to tear the building down- at issue is that he didnt follow the rules entirely, went ahead and did it. And looking back at it - what is the rush? Have we even started digging yet?

Compare and contrast this antagonistic approach to 1BE - where a portion of the window deemed having heritage vallue was actually preserved through community effort, and everyone was happy enough:

AoD
Click to expand...

There was a huge risk of some simpleton insisting an 80 story Foster tower have a 2nd rate squashed facedomy wrapping into its ground floor. In other words, the risk of having every visitor to Toronto stare in wonderment at our idiocy. It very nearly happened!
 
buildup said:
There was a huge risk of some simpleton insisting an 80 story Foster tower have a 2nd rate squashed facedomy wrapping into its ground floor. In other words, the risk of having every visitor to Toronto stare in wonderment at our idiocy. It very nearly happened!
Click to expand...

Is there? The opinions out there on the heritage value of Stollery aren't all that positive - Personally I think it is unlikely it would have been preserved in the manner you suggest. It may however bought time for selective preservation of some elements and still not affect the approval schedule.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I grant your comments have been more balanced than mine. Having said that, the risk was not near-zero. Stollery had fans, not sure why. The energy required to get things done is underestimated, sometimes the temptation is to seize opportunity when it presents itself since many hurdles remain. For example Uptown NIMBYs who want to preserve their vistas under the guise of endless traffic studies.
 
buildup said:
I grant your comments have been more balanced than mine. Having said that, the risk was not near-zero. Stollery had fans, not sure why. The energy required to get things done is underestimated, sometimes the temptation is to seize opportunity when it presents itself since many hurdles remain. For example Uptown NIMBYs who want to preserve their vistas under the guise of endless traffic studies.
Click to expand...

Yeah but those who are in Uptown with an issue with the height and access would be against the proposal with or without facade preservation in-situ - and given 1BE across the street, one can't seriously expect a lesser height that would prevent view intrusion (not that it is a right to start off with).

AoD
 
Last edited:
buildup said:
I grant your comments have been more balanced than mine. Having said that, the risk was not near-zero. Stollery had fans, not sure why. The energy required to get things done is underestimated, sometimes the temptation is to seize opportunity when it presents itself since many hurdles remain. For example Uptown NIMBYs who want to preserve their vistas under the guise of endless traffic studies.
Click to expand...

Zoning is time consuming. Assembling a development site is exponentially more time consuming . Some developers choose to avoid these steps which creates a market onto itself however, if that was the largest hurdle to overcome, those assembling the land would build the towers too.
 
Some action on site. 2x optical zoom on iPhone 7 plus.
IMG_2243.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2243.JPG
    IMG_2243.JPG
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,515
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top