Toronto 321 Davenport | 36.4m | 9s | Alterra | Giannone Petricone

I've seen it noted a number of times now that MA might have a point about the trees she is worried about. Has anyone looked at the Arborist/Landscape/Urban Forestry reports? Does she have a point?
 
thanks!
maybe someone should forward that thread to Matt Elliott, I think he's the one who has been saying there's credence to those concerns
 
Firstly, as a resident of the Annex the past five years (apartment dweller, not homeowner), I'm sad that I never bumped into Ms. Atwood, even when walking my dog along Admiral. I'm moving to the Bloor & Jane area next week, so alas, I shall never have the 'pleasure'!

While Margaret Atwood deserves the criticism levelled here and elsewhere, it is odd that no one is paying similar attention to the extreme hypocrisy of Galen Weston (whom I also never bumped into while walking my dog). What would he have to say to neighbours of the properties Choice REIT is developing? I'm certain the redevelopment at Bloor and Dundas will include buildings with heights greater than 8 stories.

As a side note, I find it fascinating that an Eaton heir is involved. Having brushed up on the history of the Annex, I know that back in the 1880s and 1890s, the Eatons built, and for many years, resided in several of the largest mansions in the Annex. Neat that at least one Eaton still lives (or is back in) the area.
 
Unfortunately, what is getting lost in all the chatter about Annex aristocrats is discussion about how truly bad the proposed building is, both architecturally and urbanistically. Everyone should look at the drawings in Final Report and instead of delighting in the discomfort of the well-heeled ask why on earth the Planning Department would support such a banal building that doesn't meet even the most basic rear-yard setbacks and angular planes, which are in place to produce compatible developments for both rich and not-so-rich alike.
 
Since there's already a Staff Report (favourable), it seems City Planning & Developer already had their Community Consultation with local community on this development application; these Community Consultation meetings would have also involved the local City Councillor, local residents and the area's local ratepayers association - the result of which may have already resulted in some design changes to satisfy the community and City Planning.

Now,... after that community consultation process that resulted in a favourable report from City Planning, apparently a few individuals thinks they're entitled to a stronger voice than everyone else,...

My question would be where's the local ratepayers' association in all this? The Annex Residents' Association (www.theara.org) covers Avenue Rd to Bathurst St, Bloor St to the railroad tracks north of Dupont Street. The Annex Residents' Association is officially recognized by the City and would have had some say in this development proposal during the earlier community consultation period; the City would value the ratepayers' group opinion since they're to represent the consensus of the local residents (not a few individuals). Since they're staying quite, I'll assume their consensus opinion is already reflected in the Staff Report.
http://davidtopping.tumblr.com/torontoresidents

Also note, there is NO "Secondary Plan" for this area. If it's the case that Ms Atwood and company's view represent the consensus of the local residents then they should have, with the help of the local ratepayers group and councillor, established a Secondary Plan for this area years ago,.... to limit height, density, style, zoning, etc,.... but forbidding stuff like regular balcony (when property across the street already has balcony facing the non arterial street) is a bit much,....
https://www1.toronto.ca/planning/35-secondary-plans.pdf

Now a few self-entitled individuals (who think their sh*t doesn't stink) are using their celebrity status (not official recognized by City) to hi-jack the development application process to fight a development proposal with favourable Staff Report,.... and they're doing it without the support of their local ratepayers group nor that of their local councillor (it seems),.... good luck with that.

If they win,... that'll only shows that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others",... in this so-called great city of Toronto.
 
So it's going to mediation. That's fair. Myself, I think it is about two storeys too tall.
 
ProjectEnd said:
http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/condo-conundrum-in-the-annex
Click to expand...
She was very political in that sidestepped any direct questions about this development, essentially only saying "we need to have these discussions'. What I am glad about is that she asked that we find the nuance in these talks, and that we need our discussions to be more sophisticated. I disagree with her re: not labelling certain people NIMBYs (when they clearly are) as it can back them into a corner and foster intransigence… but we do need to stop seeing these discussions as all-or-nothing, and black-and-white: that was easy to appreciate.

42
 
interchange42 said:
She was very political in that sidestepped any direct questions about this development, essentially only saying "we need to have these discussions'. What I am glad about is that she asked that we find the nuance in these talks, and that we need our discussions to be more sophisticated. I disagree with her re: not labelling certain people NIMBYs (when they clearly are) as it can back them into a corner and foster intransigence… but we do need to stop seeing these discussions as all-or-nothing, and black-and-white: that was easy to appreciate.

42
Click to expand...

The part of her back and forth with Alex Bozikovic that I took special exception to was her all-too-common NIMBY talking point about how developers consistently "ignore" zoning and bylaws. Go to just about any development consultation and you're likely to hear NIMBYs whining about that point as if it has any relevance to anything.
 
I haven't read that yet, but that sounds entirely disingenuous on her part, and cold be interpreted as a political response to safeguard options for her future (despite the fact that she has repeatedly disavowed running in either of 2018's big elections.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top