officedweller
Senior Member
I referenced it because the reason for the carve-out was similar - to accommodate a neighbouring building - not to suggest that the designs were similar or equal.
Toronto 19 Bloor West | 317.4m | 99s | Reserve Properties | Arcadis
- Thread starter Bayer
- Start date
Lyphe
Active Member
Interesting argument.
So you believe government's capacity to address issues is linear with no ability to address multiple items at the same time? Personally, I'm a huge fan of the paper bag thing. I rarely have my reusable bag for the LCBO with me since I often grab LCBO when I'm out but not planning for it. The result is I have to buy a reusable bag that is made with plastics over and over, negating the actual effect/benefit of using reusable bags and being much worse for the environment. Where feasible, I wait to get a bag or just carry what I buy, but that isn't always viable. And I'm just one person. Seems like a reasonable change to me.
Amare
Senior Member
I find it comical where their priorities are; Doug goes and expeditiously mandates the LCBO to bring back paper bags but meanwhile he'll drag his feet on various housing issues which have been plaguing the province for years (ie: the never ending backlog in the LTB, OLT backlogs, lack of enforcement with the RHEU, etc, etc).
The government is more than capable of addressing multiple issues at the same time, the problem is that our idiot premier will snap his fingers at something he wants done quickly, while playing games when it comes to issues that really matter. Not to say that other politicians in this province/country are immune to that same stupidity, but this move here is just blatantly laughable especially when he does it for the sake of "affordability".
I would say that the province should look into mandating elevator minimums and actual livable spaces but....
Strange Advance
Active Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2008
- Messages
- 644
- Reaction score
- 674
- Location
- Home of the Brave, Worlds Away
Agreed. He makes up policy on the fly. Regarding booze bags, my feeling is that DoFo waddled into an LCBO last week sans bags, and was outraged that he had to pay a few pennies for a paper bag. Meanwhile Rome burns.
But back to 19 Bloor W.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Making new buildings livable, instead of just letting them be maximized for profit at the expense of the future residents, would upset developers so it'll never happen in this province
.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...this proposal is pretty much QED of that. /sighMaking new buildings livable, instead of just letting them be maximized for profit at the expense of the future residents, would upset developers so it'll never happen in this province
Doppleganger
Active Member
I can't help thinking that having two supertalls so close to one another really does little to boost Toronto's image as a 'vertical' city, but it certainly makes it look like a poorly planned one.
cd concept
Senior Member
I like New York City policy in order to build a substantial supertall tower . You must accumulate a good amount of parcel of land around it to do so. Creating some distance between other niebouring tall towers etc.
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm going to place this here:
It's a piece about the issue of elevator wait times and the need to regulate them.
UrbanToronto's front page story on said issue in relation to this thread's proposal is referenced in the story.
It's good to see the subject being broached by the media, and by Eric Miller of U of T as well.
Rob Isabelle (an elevator consultant) is also referenced in the story.
The City and the Province were both asked for comment w/the City responding and essentially saying (my words) we defer to the building code
Meanwhile, the province did not respond to the request for comment at all..
It's a piece about the issue of elevator wait times and the need to regulate them.
UrbanToronto's front page story on said issue in relation to this thread's proposal is referenced in the story.
It's good to see the subject being broached by the media, and by Eric Miller of U of T as well.
Rob Isabelle (an elevator consultant) is also referenced in the story.
The City and the Province were both asked for comment w/the City responding and essentially saying (my words) we defer to the building code
Meanwhile, the province did not respond to the request for comment at all..
We were originally in the Mary Wiens piece on Metro Morning yesterday too… until an editor got a hold of it and trimmed it for time. Bloody editors!
42
evandyk
Senior Member
For years, the city has said it doesn't care about elevator numbers because it's not a "safety issue".
AntiYimby
New Member
OLT approves appeal; development may be more likely now?
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/OLT-23-000649-NOV-28-2024.PDF
"THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:1. the appeals are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite mattersidentified in below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle. 5 OLT-23-0006492. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following matters:a. the final form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, CityPlanning; b. the owner has revised the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report, Hydrological Review Summary, and Groundwater Summary to the satisfaction of theChief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; c. all comments from Engineering and Construction Services contained in their April 21, 2023 memorandum are addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director,Engineering and Construction Services;d. the owner has made satisfactory arrangements for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report,to be resubmitted for review and acceptance by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements to such infrastructure are required to support this development; ande. the owner has submitted a revised shadow study and pedestrian wind study, including the identification of any required wind mitigation measures to be secured in the Zoning By-law Amendment and through the site plan control process, to the 6 OLT-23-000649satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning"
https://www.omb.gov.on.ca/e-decisions/OLT-23-000649-NOV-28-2024.PDF
"THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS that:1. the appeals are allowed in part, on an interim basis, contingent upon confirmation, satisfaction or receipt of those pre-requisite mattersidentified in below, and the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment set out in Attachments 1 and 2 to this Interim Order, are hereby approved in principle. 5 OLT-23-0006492. The Tribunal will withhold the issuance of its Final Order contingent upon confirmation of the City Solicitor, of the following matters:a. the final form and content of the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment are to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, CityPlanning; b. the owner has revised the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, Hydrogeological Report, Hydrological Review Summary, and Groundwater Summary to the satisfaction of theChief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services; c. all comments from Engineering and Construction Services contained in their April 21, 2023 memorandum are addressed to the satisfaction of the Chief Engineer and Executive Director,Engineering and Construction Services;d. the owner has made satisfactory arrangements for the construction of any improvements to the municipal infrastructure in connection with the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report,to be resubmitted for review and acceptance by the Chief Engineer and Executive Director, Engineering and Construction Services, should it be determined that improvements to such infrastructure are required to support this development; ande. the owner has submitted a revised shadow study and pedestrian wind study, including the identification of any required wind mitigation measures to be secured in the Zoning By-law Amendment and through the site plan control process, to the 6 OLT-23-000649satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning"
Northern Light
Superstar
The Settlement was already a more or less done deal, but the OLT's stamp of approval was a prerequisite in the process for the site to advance to market.
Now.......just because there is zoning in place does not mean development will follow.
@ProjectEnd has more of an ear to the ground on this than I........... but I don't see this one going to market in the current environment.
I mean who knows.......maybe someone at Reserve likes going all-in when in Vegas.......... but to me ........putting this to market and building would involve prohibitive risk in the current circumstance.
To the extent that any of the potential nearby builds choose to proceed, I think several, if not all have a better risk-reward profile than this..........ummm.......what would PE call it?
Oh that's right:
From: https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/21089154/Dumpster-Fire
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Yeah, this ain't happening any time soon (hopefully at all, but we're not going to be that lucky). Even as a rental (for different reasons), it's not something Reserve can undertake at this time.
Collingwoodbuildinglover
Active Member
Here is hoping that we possibly get a redesigned shorter Tower because this thing is ugly