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

[Brother Jonathan]

Funny you should maintain this line when nearly all of the recent research suggests that the widespread use of zoning throughout the United States and Canada was indeed done for explicitly racist reasons.

It isn't really my place to say this, but I think you're being a bit unfair to the other poster. There's no arguing with what you posted, but I also haven't seen anything to suggest that race in particular is the other poster's concern, which is what your post, intentionally or otherwise, suggests.

 

[ProjectEnd]

It wasn't an attempt to cast the poster in question as a racist, apologies if it comes off that way. It's merely trying to confront the idea that zoning isn't a device used to control people.

He wrote this:

Citizens are all treated the same. It's the only land that's treated differently. This is called zoning. The city does not zone people. It zones uses of land. People are free to move wherever they choose.

So no more high density on Prince Arthur just as no more high density on some side street in the Junction.

...when the historical record shows that it's empirically false.

Again - my contention isn't that @LMVDR is a racist per se, just that his statement isn't correct.

 

[LMVDR]

It wasn't an attempt to cast the poster in question as a racist, apologies if it comes off that way. It's merely trying to confront the idea that zoning isn't a device used to control people.

He wrote this:



...when the historical record shows that it's empirically false.

Again - my contention isn't that @LMVDR is a racist per se, just that his statement isn't correct.

Zoning is used to control people huh?

This discussion has throughout the course of the day, devolved into a giant ball of nonsense. I made my point, clearly. I'm quite certain that the planners, residents, politicians, future OMB, will see things my way. If they don't it will be a loss to the neighbourhood and the city as a whole as the pockets of low rise/mid rise mixed use neighborhood close to the core must be preserved if we want the City to continue to thrive.

Final comment.

 

[A Torontonian Now]

I'm quite certain that the planners, residents, politicians, future OMB, will see things my way.

I'm not so certain, especially since you've already heard (and clearly dismissed) the contrary opinion of, by my count, at least 3 local residents...

 

[buildup]

It does seem a bit odd that we care about shadowing on single family homes, but we do not care about shadowing on neighbouring apartment buildings and condos. Which affect A LOT more people.

That is an amazing and always overlooked point. I bought a condo and since occupying a decade ago 4 towers, all of which got height exemptions, have removed about 2/3 of my sunlight minutes and surrounding view. It never occurred to me to whine about it.

 

[ADRM]

I'm quite certain that the planners, residents, politicians, future OMB, will see things my way

And I'm quite certain I'll be thinking fondly of you and your giant ball of emotional nonsense when this ultimately tops off at a height somewhere between 15 and 29 storeys.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Zoning is used to control people huh?

This discussion has throughout the course of the day, devolved into a giant ball of nonsense. I made my point, clearly. I'm quite certain that the planners, residents, politicians, future OMB, will see things my way. If they don't it will be a loss to the neighbourhood and the city as a whole as the pockets of low rise/mid rise mixed use neighborhood close to the core must be preserved if we want the City to continue to thrive.

Final comment.

I'm not sure what's difficult to understand about that.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

UT Article: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/09/rezoning-application-reveals-further-64-prince-arthur-details
Dev App: http://app.toronto.ca/DevelopmentAp...4238178&isCofASearch=false&isTlabSearch=false

Additional Renderings from Project Renderings & Shadow Study Report:

Aerial Views:

Shadowing:

AoD

 

[buildup]

So, zero shadow impact on the park. Next objection?
Thank Alvin of Despair I've never seen such a report before.

 

[interchange42]

It's only in June when it has "no" shadow impact on the park. (There is a little in June.) Every other month there's more shadow. The March/September shadows are in the report: check it out!

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's only in June when it has "no" shadow impact on the park. (There is a little in June.) Every other month there's more shadow. The March/September shadows are in the report: check it out!
42

I was wondering where they are - thanks for prodding me to check again: Equinox Shadowing:

AoD

 

[LMVDR]

Uber shadows on a high value public park, not to mention blanketing half the neighborhood in shadows. Proposal will be rejected on its face.

Are these clowns trying to look stupid or is it their inexperience?

 

[Gido]

Uber shadows on a high value public park. Proposal will be rejected on its face.

Are these clowns trying to look stupid or is it their inexperience?

The building to the east applies nearly a 10 fold 'uber shadow' to the park so although I see Atwoodgalenimbyism roaring its head on this, it is unfounded, this park has never been valued for its sun exposure, so trying to make it about that is a tiny bit of theatrics.
I think this is a smart looking proposal and had me saying 'build it yesterday'

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the Globe:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...o-building-in-torontos-annex/article36874731/

AoD

 

[ADRM]

From the Globe:

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/re...o-building-in-torontos-annex/article36874731/

AoD

"For once, the neighbourhood wants this building built," said Mr. Adi, chief executive of Adi Development Group. "I've never seen that kind of positive response to a building."

*paging Margaret*