C-mac
Senior Member
I'm not questioning if the zoning by-law's exists, I'm questioning if they are fair and if they are outdated. (especially in a city that's desperate for more housing in the DT core, and the only place to go is up)
Toronto The One | 328.4m | 91s | Mizrahi Developments | Foster + Partners
- Thread starter urbandreamer
- Start date
I'm not questioning if the zoning by-law's exists, I'm questioning if they are fair and if they are outdated. (especially in a city that's desperate for more housing in the DT core, and the only place to go is up)
Tuscani01
Senior Member
You asked why do park lovers get priority, and if a vote from residents was taken.
I answered your questions by pointing to the policies that give parks priority and which were created at the request of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Policy isn’t made in a vacuum. The policies exist because residents pushed for them.
Heck, I even want to see this taller for my own selfish reasons… but I’m just pointing out the reality of the situation.
C-mac
Senior Member
Okay, but this wasn't part of your original posts. You simply gave me a link to the existing policies which I assumed were already in place.
My question was more about how current the polices are, and if they are fair. I mean the debate can go down a few rabbit holes here, like how much of this is NIMBY, and if all residents were consulted on this, or was it simply a matter of a minority group of active residents so they got their wish?
I do appreciated the link and response though.
Thank You.
P.S, if this is too far off topic I apologize, and maybe there is a discussion thread already somewhere about this topic?
Last edited:
limer
Active Member
I had a thought that there is a “reverse NIMBYism” happening here, if that is the right made-up term.
I want this height approved as well, for the selfish reason that I like this building and want it as tall as it can be, and preciously because it is not in my backyard - I live in an area where I’ve seen multiple highrises go up around me, and they’ve already affected the trees on the street. There’s a park I frequent nearby which is essentially the backyard of my neighborhood, and if that park was compromised by a new development, it would definitely affect my own quality of life.
If the height increase affects shadowing in the park, then I can extend some empathy and understand why it should be denied. It shouldn’t be approved just cause someone who doesn’t live there wants a slightly taller building to oogle at in pictures (Koops render shows how minimal the difference is anyway). Pictures may make a city look great on paper, but livability makes a city great in reality.
UpwithOlives
Active Member
So that's the first cladding on the columns (with protective film)?
DSC
Superstar
Member Bio
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2008
- Messages
- 18,585
- Reaction score
- 25,246
- Location
- St Lawrence Market Area
Exactly! Does anyone really want to live in a City where even the parks are in shadow most of the time (or where very little land is give over to 'unproductive) parks in the first place. A City is MUCH more than the buildings and the planners (and the politicians) have the difficult task of balancing many factors. Whether they do a good job of it is another discussion - and all of this REALLY does not belong in this thread!
khaldoon
Active Member
Not sure. I was under the impression that column cladding would be one piece just like the corner section installed previously. But maybe it will be made of 3 pieces?
vinny_the_hack
Active Member
Likewise, it shouldn't be denied just because it adds a few minutes of shadow for a few months of the year to a park that is ugly, anyway.
C-mac
Senior Member
Hmmmm...how big is the DT core? Maybe like 4kX4k?
There's not a lot of space down there and people want to live down there. People shouldn't be able to have their cake and eat it too. If people like parks and open space, maybe DT isn't the place they should be living.
Again, not trying to derail this thread so maybe there should be a separate thread on this, but as it pertains to this particular building, it's such desirable location that a few hours in a park a few months year is NIMBYism to the extreme IMO. It's like "well I've got my DT situation figured out, as long as I'm happy everyone else will out to live in the burbs".
C-mac
Senior Member
Well how livable is the city when lack of units keep driving the price up? Again, your talking about the DT core which is extremely small. 4kx4k maybe?? I think zoning by-laws DT should be way loser, and if you like parks and green space, there's hundreds of kilometers outside the DT core for you to choose from.
ArnerOwl
New Member
Yeah, probably three pieces per column. The Alfrex website (they make the aluminum cladding plate) shows shaped coverings usually have noticeable seams. Adds to the dramatic effect.
Lenser
Senior Member
I sure don't see it in such stark terms. It needn't be either/or, it's about striking a sensible balance. Tossing all the regulations to please height fetishists doesn't strike me as good policy - and I believe there's a place for substantial greenery in our downtown cores. But back to the One... it's still going to be a tremendous presence at that corner, regardless.
Alex L
Active Member
I think you have to apply the policy on shadowing fairly. That means applying it to all projects. Otherwise, there would be a debate on every project. Developers have planners on their staff, and they should be prepared for policies that are in effect.
Policy is policy. It was developed over time with good intentions. The merits of this or that park SHOULD NOT MATTER. The merits of the building SHOULD NOT MATTER. I could agree that a policy can be bent a little in specific circumstances. That's fair. But it's not a policy if it is debatable on every project. The debate is whether it follows or contravenes the policy. Policies should be decided in the political arena, not case by case by project. You could argue that policy A or B needs to be updated, but do it in the public forum. Election debate. Council meetings. Community meetings. Etc.
In this case, the building is going to be damn tall anyway. And there are more towers coming nearby. We can't open up policy for debate or the other towers will want extra height too. There could be a whole area of shade, and that's no good. Let the sunshine in!
Policy is policy. It was developed over time with good intentions. The merits of this or that park SHOULD NOT MATTER. The merits of the building SHOULD NOT MATTER. I could agree that a policy can be bent a little in specific circumstances. That's fair. But it's not a policy if it is debatable on every project. The debate is whether it follows or contravenes the policy. Policies should be decided in the political arena, not case by case by project. You could argue that policy A or B needs to be updated, but do it in the public forum. Election debate. Council meetings. Community meetings. Etc.
In this case, the building is going to be damn tall anyway. And there are more towers coming nearby. We can't open up policy for debate or the other towers will want extra height too. There could be a whole area of shade, and that's no good. Let the sunshine in!
khaldoon
Active Member
I agree but it is too subjective. This project already projects a certain percentage x of shadow during a percentage y of the day for a number of days z during the year. Where do you draw the line? 10% more x or y or z? What are the limits in the policy/guidelines?
Last edited:
Benito
Senior Member
Today.
