Toronto 39 Newcastle | 119.3m | 36s | VANDYK | SvN

Filip said:
Did you miss the recent news about those councillors and Dunpar or should I be googling for you?
Click to expand...
No, I didn't miss it. It would be hard to miss that there have been questionable goings on in the past, but I'm not sure where your beef comes from in this case.

This is a new application. There's no response to it from City Planning yet, nor Councillor Grimes. Councillor Di Ciano's brother hasn't worked for Dunpar since July 2015, and Di Ciano would have no input here until some Council vote, which could be another year away, which he may decide to steer clear of.

What do you mean by "ombudsman-friendly conversations"? Do you actually mean to refer the City's Integrity Commissioner, and if so, to question their integrity?

42
 
interchange42 said:
No, I didn't miss it. It would be hard to miss that there have been questionable goings on in the past, but I'm not sure where your beef comes from in this case.

This is a new application. There's no response to it from City Planning yet, nor Councillor Grimes. Councillor Di Ciano's brother hasn't worked for Dunpar since July 2015, and Di Ciano would have no input here until some Council vote, which could be another year away, which he may decide to steer clear of.

What do you mean by "ombudsman-friendly conversations"? Do you actually mean to refer the City's Integrity Commissioner, and if so, to question their integrity?

42
Click to expand...
Questionable? Crooks in city hall get a pass from UT unless it's Ford.
 
Last edited:
You keep throwing around accusations without providing any detail to back them up. I don't let idle accusations go unchallenged in any thread. Without some actual content to discuss, the accusations are empty.

So, in what way does this application merit being called by you "another sleezy DiCiano/Grimes affair"?

42
 
I have no problem with the height for the area since this is the future in the first place. The project to the north and east is going to be the same and this will blend in fine.

GO Drivers are going to loose their free parking and have no issue with that. How long will it before Metrolinx starts looking at building a parking structure and charge drivers to park there not the riders who don't drive to stations in the first place??
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
You keep throwing around accusations without providing any detail to back them up. I don't let idle accusations go unchallenged in any thread. Without some actual content to discuss, the accusations are empty.

So, in what way does this application merit being called by you "another sleezy DiCiano/Grimes affair"?

42
Click to expand...
What is empty?

The fact that these developments in Mimico are grossly overdone for the neighbourhood? Would any stable neighbourhood you can think of be open to this? The Annex? Bloor West? The Beaches?

Servicing almost 3000 units in an area where there are no arterial roads? Royal York and all the neighbouring roads are two lanes. One each way - how is that supposed to work. Tell me? The roads directly fronting the proposal are so narrow that with the parked cars only one car per direction can get through. It can be entertaining in morning rush with people driving to the station.

Even if we assume that 50% of residents will take GO (a very generous assumption) then there's still likely over a thousand new cars. Royal York is gridlocked in rush hour already because it's a two lane road and the main road in that part of the area.

Mimico is a stable neighbourhood and this doesn't help enhance stable neighbourhoods. You have Grimes on record excited about revitalization here as if he hasn't learned his lesson about uncontrolled condo development. The city's plan speaks of 10 storey midrises, stacked townhouses and townhouses - not 30 storey slabs. However there could be all kinds of incentives for dear councillor to thickheadedly push this ahead.

If you think this is ok for Mimico then we have nothing else to discuss.
 
Filip said:
What is empty?

The fact that these developments in Mimico are grossly overdone for the neighbourhood? Would any stable neighbourhood you can think of be open to this? The Annex? Bloor West? The Beaches?

Servicing almost 3000 units in an area where there are no arterial roads? Royal York and all the neighbouring roads are two lanes. One each way - how is that supposed to work. Tell me? The roads directly fronting the proposal are so narrow that with the parked cars only one car per direction can get through. It can be entertaining in morning rush with people driving to the station.

Even if we assume that 50% of residents will take GO (a very generous assumption) then there's still likely over a thousand new cars. Royal York is gridlocked in rush hour already because it's a two lane road and the main road in that part of the area.

Mimico is a stable neighbourhood and this doesn't help enhance stable neighbourhoods. You have Grimes on record excited about revitalization here as if he hasn't learned his lesson about uncontrolled condo development. The city's plan speaks of 10 storey midrises, stacked townhouses and townhouses - not 30 storey slabs. However there could be all kinds of incentives for dear councillor to thickheadedly push this ahead.

If you think this is ok for Mimico then we have nothing else to discuss.
Click to expand...

This is not about what I think is ok for Mimico. Where have I stated an option on this? I'm just stating what has happened to this point, and like I've already said, this application and Grand Park Village are brand new, and there has been no response from either the Planning Department or the Councillor on them yet.

Any landowner/developer can propose anything, and once they do the City has 120 days to respond before the law says that the landowner/developer can opt to send the case to the OMB.

In this case, we are talking about some applications in a few blocks that have been designated by the City as a Regeneration Area. North of the tracks, but south of the stable neighbourhood north of Portland Street, these few commercial-industrial blocks have been stagnant for a decade or more, and the City wants to see renewal. The City is not looking for the kind of density that's been proposed in these two submissions, but then it's not the Planning Department putting these forward, and not the Councillor putting these forward.

Developers hire experts to tell them what they think might be a reasonable ask… at least as far as what might be found reasonable at an OMB appeal, or just slightly above. It's often denser than the City wants of course, so consider the applications as starting points for a negotiation, ones which might be resolved at the City without going to the OMB, if the developer is willing to cut down to what the City would find acceptable.

Once you've seen the response from the Planning Department and Councillor Grimes, then of course you're in a position to make an informed comment yourself, but until then you have no idea what the response is going to be. Why prejudge their positions?

42
 
interchange42 said:
This is not about what I think is ok for Mimico. Where have I stated an option on this? I'm just stating what has happened to this point, and like I've already said, this application and Grand Park Village are brand new, and there has been no response from either the Planning Department or the Councillor on them yet.

Any landowner/developer can propose anything, and once they do the City has 120 days to respond before the law says that the landowner/developer can opt to send the case to the OMB.

In this case, we are talking about some applications in a few blocks that have been designated by the City as a Regeneration Area. North of the tracks, but south of the stable neighbourhood north of Portland Street, these few commercial-industrial blocks have been stagnant for a decade or more, and the City wants to see renewal. The City is not looking for the kind of density that's been proposed in these two submissions, but then it's not the Planning Department putting these forward, and not the Councillor putting these forward.

Developers hire experts to tell them what they think might be a reasonable ask… at least as far as what might be found reasonable at an OMB appeal, or just slightly above. It's often denser than the City wants of course, so consider the applications as starting points for a negotiation, ones which might be resolved at the City without going to the OMB, if the developer is willing to cut down to what the City would find acceptable.

Once you've seen the response from the Planning Department and Councillor Grimes, then of course you're in a position to make an informed comment yourself, but until then you have no idea what the response is going to be. Why prejudge their positions?

42
Click to expand...
Because precedent? This is the councillor who fought against City Planning in council to add height to the EDS towers when absolutely everyone was saying the area cannot support the density, this is the councillor who supported putting homes next to the rail yards for his developer buddies, this is the councillor who somehow managed to reduce a developer's S37 benefits by $100k. So pardon me for being cynical in regards to Grimes and DiCiano - anyone should be. When the Integrity Commissioner finds a problem, there's usually more. I don't remember giving Rob Ford this much benefit of the doubt even if his wrong doings were more vague.

Grimes works for developers and not his constituents - I think that's abundantly clear to anyone reading Ward 6 happenings.
 
At the risk of being shunned, I will say that I like this proposal ... it presents a strong street wall podium with 2 decently sized point towers that are thoughtfully placed to maximize views and sunlight exposure, a big PLUS is the cladding system here is brick (or precast brick) exteriors which is a huge relief from the typical glass towers nowadays
 
I wouldn't call those point towers although I guess the the 10/12 suites per floor qualify in a Toronto context. They are also pretty damn tall in light of the density provided by that strong street wall. I don't care for the design in particular the commercial floors.
 
Solaris said:
At the risk of being shunned, I will say that I like this proposal ... it presents a strong street wall podium with 2 decently sized point towers that are thoughtfully placed to maximize views and sunlight exposure, a big PLUS is the cladding system here is brick (or precast brick) exteriors which is a huge relief from the typical glass towers nowadays
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most points. Creating a high density hub right at Mimico GO does not seem like bad planning to me.

However, while I typically like brick cladding, these early renders have a type of faux-historicism to them that could look schlocky. I hope to be proven wrong.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top