All the better to balance out the Jacobs-cunnilingus crowd on here.
There are others here that can speak to this better than I can but the planning staff have no option but to oppose. The application is for something that is not allowed in the current zoning. The only people that can change the zoning are city council. To expect the planning staff to do anything but refuse is ludicrous. They examine the proposal based on the current zoning and then recommend to council whether the proposal fits the criteria or not. If it doesn't they recommend refusal. Blame council if this ultimately gets refused.
London's been doing pretty good in recent decades without having to do anything drastic with their older buildings.
No what I have implied is if one does not favour change or progress, one should aspire to live in a non progressive, stagnant city like Buffalo, a city that peaked 50 years ago. Buffalo's stock of historical buildings exist due to lack of growth, not preservation. Toronto came into its own 50 years ago and made sacrifices to move forward and grow. Had we not made said sacrifices and refused to grow, then yes we would be like Buffalo.
We are currently experiencing unprecedented growth, and the city is clearly struggling to comes to terms with this. This project, more than any other is symbolic of a planning dept., city counsel, and some forumers refusal to accept the reality of the situation.
Reading through the City's OMB refusal report really highlights how out to lunch the planning dept. and city is. They are clinging to a master plan that no longer applies and even acknowledge this in their report. They speak about the current and proposed projects (sans the Mirvish proposal) adding density and potentially bringing in over 18,000 residents vs. 148, yes that is correct 148 residents that lived in the area 20 years ago.
Rather than amend planning, address issues with transit and "crowding" and work to make this neighborhood a success, they would rather site outdated planning such as the 30m height limits in the area (no longer applicable) and the skyline tapering policy (no longer applicable). Although they did conduct a study of the area after approving over 20 projects that differ dramatically from the original master plan in this area.
City of Toronto Planning Dept. what is your plan to address the potential 18,000 residents moving into the neighborhood? What is your plan to address transit issues? What is your plan to address the lack of Hydro and infrastructure? What is your plan to address the lack of community services and schools? What is your plan to address the lack of green space? You have over 18,000 residents moving into this area in the next 7 to 10 years.
Denying this project and making it the scapegoat for your short-sightedness and lack of adaptably does not solve any of the issues you sighted in your refusal report. Do you believe that by denying this project that these issues will magically disappear?
Like I have said umpteen times, Ms. Keesmaat and company, time for some vision and leadership here. Time to get your head out of the sand and take responsibility for your actions (or lack thereof). This applies to Mr. Vaughn and company at city counsel as well, as they are equally responsible for this fiasco.
The city trashed their own plan a long time ago. Cleary you haven't read the official plan and how none of the approved developments conform to this.
Urban cunnilingus is good. That, essentially, is what the disarming ability to appreciate existing conditions is all about.
And, I *do* get this aridly vagina-free vibe of either young boys w/undropped testicles, or older boys w/visions of Tom Of Finland urban utopia, in some of these progress-or-stagnate arguments...
We at UT are aware of your tender age. We know that as a young fella these types of titillating descriptions are hard to avoid, but you have to try. Please respond and let us all know that you'll take this into consideration.