Toronto E18HTEEN Erskine | 106.98m | 35s | KG | Kirkor Architects

Justifiable anger. Normally I don't side with Nimbyism, but boy, sometimes the OMB just doesn't get it right. It's not the location to me, the height or anything like that, that bothers me, but rather the encumbrance placed upon the school and the board by a private company. I would hope that all costs to relocate and costs to determine the effects from construction on the school are fully covered by the developer. That's at minimum, it still doesn't and shouldn't sit well with most sensible people.
 
to me it's a ridiculous standard that the TDSB is applying. The developer or any neighbor of a school has a right to develop their property, the TDSB can't scream bloody murder when a neighbor wants to build something. Actually closing the school because of some construction would be a ridiculous over-reaction. So what if the kids have to play with a bit of construction noise next door for a few years. Whoop-de-doo, life isn't a perfect utopia.
 
Tory's been on the noon news, caught by cameras along with the protesting parents, talking about "just another condo". That kind of lazy rhetoric bugs me as it just panders to NIMBY sentiments without meaning anything specific at all, and at the same time ignores the housing shortage issues in this city. There are issues to tackle at this site, (which may all be taken care of simply by construction staging planning), so this represents zero leadership from Tory, and instead is just more of the politically expedient pandering he's become the crown prince of.

42
 
innsertnamehere said:
to me it's a ridiculous standard that the TDSB is applying. The developer or any neighbor of a school has a right to develop their property, the TDSB can't scream bloody murder when a neighbor wants to build something. Actually closing the school because of some construction would be a ridiculous over-reaction. So what if the kids have to play with a bit of construction noise next door for a few years. Whoop-de-doo, life isn't a perfect utopia.
Click to expand...

I live across the street from a condo going up. 7AM to 7PM. Nothing has fallen on my kids yet. Why is a school any different than a condo our house where kids live is what I wonder.
 
interchange42 said:
Tory's been on the noon news, caught by cameras along with the protesting parents, talking about "just another condo". That kind of lazy rhetoric bugs me as it just panders to NIMBY sentiments without meaning anything specific at all, and at the same time ignores the housing shortage issues in this city. There are issues to tackle at this site, (which may all be taken care of simply by construction staging planning), so this represents zero leadership from Tory, and instead is just more of the politically expedient pandering he's become the crown prince of.

42
Click to expand...

Governance according to truthiness.
 
innsertnamehere said:
to me it's a ridiculous standard that the TDSB is applying. The developer or any neighbor of a school has a right to develop their property, the TDSB can't scream bloody murder when a neighbor wants to build something. Actually closing the school because of some construction would be a ridiculous over-reaction. So what if the kids have to play with a bit of construction noise next door for a few years. Whoop-de-doo, life isn't a perfect utopia.
Click to expand...

Hang on though, even if we don't question the right to build or the desired and now approved density, the way I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the construction will cause unavoidable closures of at least some of the schools usual recreational area. I guess what I am saying is if the development is the cause of the closure due to areas being deemed unsafe for use, there should be at minimum some compensation. I feel like the developer has less motive to consider the safety of the areas near their development, but perhaps I am just jaded about how much developers actually care out anything outside of profit, having grown up with some sons of major developers who were not too considerate of others in my experience.
 
Last edited:
The implicit implication in your post is that a developer wouldn't *really* care if a child was killed...which is nonsense.
 
Urban-Affair said:
Hang on though, even if we don't question the right to build or the desired and now approved density, the way I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the construction will cause unavoidable closures of at least some of the schools usual recreational area. I guess what I am saying is if the development is the cause of the closure due to areas being deemed unsafe for use, there should be at minimum some compensation. I feel like the developer has less motive to consider the safety of the areas near their development, but perhaps I am just jaded about how much developers actually care out anything outside of profit, having grown up with some sons of major developers who were not too considerate of others in my experience.
Click to expand...

I have close friends who live in the area. The developer offered to pay the school board a substantial sum to use some of the school site for storage of construction materials, effectively compensating them for the portion of the schoolyard that might not be usable anyway during construction. There was such negative reaction among some parents, and such blowback at some of the public meetings, that the school had to withdraw from the deal. My friends were not impressed.

Somebody else will know this better than me, but did the school board participate in the OMB hearing to express any concerns?
 
It did not. Only the Sherwood Park Residents' Association and the '17-30 Keewatin Neighbours Group' (aside from the City & the applicant) did.
 
my understanding is that closing the school yard was but an option in the construction management plan. I'm sure that like most condos downtown, they can avoid impacting adjacent properties if they have to.
 
{Sarcasm Alert}
The neighbourhood is showing unanimous support of this as seen here, taken 3 days ago further west on Roehampton. All signs were in a 7-8 house stretch from each other.
DSC_0229.JPG
DSC_0230.JPG
DSC_0231.JPG
DSC_0232.JPG

Now for me being serious, I support this development....but not at it's current proposed height/massing. I can definitely see it being a huge issue for parents and a potential issue for kids and caretakers. I think it would be better for the school if they reduced the density and height, perhaps something like 6-14 floors at most....just because it's not exactly a known and good thing for a condo site to be built next to a high school....for more than a couple of reasons.
 

Attachments

  • DSC_0229.JPG
    DSC_0229.JPG
    464 KB · Views: 741
  • DSC_0230.JPG
    DSC_0230.JPG
    477.3 KB · Views: 725
  • DSC_0231.JPG
    DSC_0231.JPG
    381.3 KB · Views: 715
  • DSC_0232.JPG
    DSC_0232.JPG
    441.9 KB · Views: 703
First, John Fisher is not a high school. Second, there's plenty of global precedent of schools being built in dense areas, often beside high-rises. Hold on, I thought Toronto was a 'global city'?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top