Toronto 64 Prince Arthur | 46.1m | 13s | Forgestone | RAW Design

[Undead]

Nice jug.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Call me crazy, but I wanna take this thread back to page 10:

42

...I think this was the event horizon that really hit it home for me on how nimbyism is really a bad thing here. That is, a narrative created by certain privileged, shortsighted and self-entitled residents that ended up killing off a good thing, even if it was likely in their own best interests to support it.

 

[Midtown Hank]

...I think this was the event horizon that really hit it home for me on how nimbyism is really a bad thing here. That is, a narrative created by certain privileged, shortsighted and self-entitled residents that ended up killing off a good thing, even if it was likely in their own best interests to support it.

I don't think that's a fair representation. The original proposal was opposed by no less than 5 parties at the OMB (OLT); (1.) The City, (2.) GWL (owners of the apartment complex to the east), (3.) Tenblock (owners of 145 St George), (4.) a group of residents immediately to the north & (5.) The Annex Resident's Association. The reality is that it was an absurd proposal for the location and got turned down. Note that there was zero opposition to the revised 14-storey submission. I don't call that NIMBYism. I call that decent planning at work.

 

[Northern Light]

...I think this was the event horizon that really hit it home for me on how nimbyism is really a bad thing here. That is, a narrative created by certain privileged, shortsighted and self-entitled residents that ended up killing off a good thing, even if it was likely in their own best interests to support it.

While the proposed architecture was more interesting, it's an open question as to whether it ever would have been built like that. It was also excessive in height, and would have shadowed an existing neighbourhood park that already has shadowing issues.

I must say, I don't agree with labeling every opponent or critic of every project as NIMBY. For one, it's simply wrong. It reads as reflex, rather than a carefully considered position.

There certainly are NIMBYs in the world; and in Toronto, and there were probably some among those opposing that iteration of proposal as well. But that doesn't mean every opponent or critic was wrong.

The use of the word NIMBY itself is problematic. Because I think what one should want to do is call out unreasonable opposition to things. People who oppose rental tenure, people who oppose any variation of affordable housing, or anything taller than 2 storeys on a main street. In such cases, it's generally easy to see that opposition is unreasonable and to challenge it on the merits; though even there..... many very pro-development people here have difficulty with height in the Church St. Village, and I get why. But it's important to say, if take a particular interest in the vibe and amenity of that community, you must imagine that others like their community just fine the way it is too.

Unreasonable resistance to change and to sharing should be called out, but one should be careful and not assume all resistance is bad.

@Midtown Hank is on point above in listing the wide range of opponents to the previous iteration, including corporate interests who would generally be served by greater height precedents in the area.

A bit more nuance is almost always a good thing in my judgement.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I am pretty sure I'm covering all those basis when I use that term here..as I am mostly using it as resistance in bad faith.