Search results

It is completely inappropriate to accuse people of racism or sexism without sufficient evidence. It is also inappropriate to use such baseless accusations to bully people into agreeing with you. The reason KWT gets so much flack is likely because she is the Councillor in a very busy part of the...

It's worth noting that "town planning" used to be an Olympic competition. I wonder if we would medal in it today.

It looks like the master plan for that block fell through.

Well I can't imagine that CF knows the office market as well as you do. Perhaps you should give them a call to let them know.

So this thread is basically about nothing.

CF doesn't gamble. This was prompted by unusually strong demand. And as the article I linked above notes, CF has been talking to potential tenants.

They announced some time ago that they're building on spec, so this isn't news. Demand is very strong, so there isn't much of a gamble here. You can read their rationale here: https://www.bisnow.com/toronto/news/office/why-cadillac-fairview-is-building-16-york-st-on-spec-71953

They don't. Oxford can walk away if they don't get what they want. They can invest elsewhere.

It will be nice to see how the private sector upgrade progresses: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/01/private-sector-upgrade-proposed-yonge-dundas-square

I thought it was the DRP who rejected it.

You could have just said that you don't know, or that you know but are unable to say.

Does this mean that the Restoration Hardware building remains in situ? Is it incorporated in the development?

Excellent article. It's nice to have an article that sees through all of the nonsense and pearl-clutching over this. "Problems seldom get as First World as this." Couldn't agree more.

EDIT: In one of the renderings you can see that the section in question is actually intended to look different. (My link didn't work.)

Are there two threads for this right now?

Perhaps this will provide some zoning context for the Giraffe site. I'd like to see that site developed.

Why would they enter into a contract with a small-time developer, especially when the question of air rights is an open one, and potential zoning a huge question mark? It makes me wonder what was actually sold, and if they took advantage of an inexperienced developer in order to hedge some risk...

It's good of you to disclose your personal bias, but I don't think the developers are "coming back for more" in terms of the height of the two towers.

I don't think the developer would need the OMB here. If they own air rights this would probably end up in the courts. I wonder if the developer is just looking for a buy-out from the city/province.

Agreed. And it is also inappropriate of him to presume to speak on behalf of the community when expressing his own desires and opinions. He votes in Council on behalf of his constituents, but the community speaks for itself, which is why we have public consultations.