Toronto Lawrence Plaza Redevelopment | 130.9m | 40s | RioCan | Diamond Schmitt

Northern Light said:
You can make that case, but may I suggest, you're not doing a great job of persuasion here..

Let me start w/the notion than when first posting on any forum, its good to introduce yourself. That doesn't mean (in most cases) your real name or job title etc. Its just hi/hello......how long you've been lurking, what about UT interests you.

Opening with a post that could certainly be read as anti-development on a forum that is broadly pro-development is very tough cold open.

From there, may I suggest less use of bold. It has a place, for instance, emphasizing a key point in a post to which you are replying or an article you're discussing, so as to show people your jumping off point. Your use of it reads more as "I am making an emphatic statement for which I have no proof, but because I've bolded it, its unchallengable!"

Its a very assertive way to post. Surely, the point in posting here is not to read your own typing, but to persuade some here, on a forum full of influential folks, many tied to the development process in one fashion or another to lean-in to support your cause, or at least not lean the other way.

To do that, you need spend a bit more time mustering evidence in support of a credible argument. To be clear, if you're a regular lurker here, you'll know I sometimes hold contrarian positions to the majority (but usually ending up bringing them on side) and regardless, I'm happy to entertain contrarian views.

But you need to bring the substance to support them.

****

Let me help you a bit.......just for the sake of good discussion.

Why is any tall building too tall?

There are potential arguments. These may revolve around any or all of the following:

1) Insufficient infrastructure or services to support the new development (electricity, water/sewer, transit/roads, parks, childcare, school capacity) etc. If you want to use this argument, you need to identify the current capacity of local schools and how many students this developent may bring such that its a problem, or the distance to the nearest park, or how far it is to the nearest current or proposed rapid transit station.

2) The height may cause shadows. Shadows aren't 'evil' but can detract from the enjoyment of a school yard, public park or plaza if they are lengthy, cumulative, or just at the wrong time (example recess or right as school gets out)
Have you looked at the shadow studies to see where the shadows will fall and when?

3) Visual coherence/context/planned context. ie, this will stand out like a sore thumb, this one you do offer some discussion of precedent for.......but here's the thing....is seeing a skyscraper in the distance really something that adversely affects you or your neighbours? I'm going to suggest the answer is 'no'. So....what were' really discussing is how it looks when you're walking by, or across the street. Here, there is a way to 'hide' height by using a podium or base building that meets the street at a height most would find reasonable, typically 3-5 floors, with the towers set-back by several meters from the roofline such that you don't even notice when you're walking by, and only tangentially make note of from across the street. So a discussion on this point is better focused on massing (the way the buildings are shaped and organized rather than height).

****

I think there's always room to question a proposal or plan on any level, pretty much, for any reason, but its hard to have that discussion if your position isn't well fleshed out and evidence-based.
Click to expand...
How about I live right across the street and it will shadow my property, where are the nearest 40 story towers around this area?
 
GZS said:
How about I live right across the street and it will shadow my property, where are the nearest 40 story towers around this area?
Click to expand...

I don't know if you want to share your address publicly (I'm not advising that or asking) but as the site has 4 sides, I can't comment to intelligently on what will or will not be shadowed other than to say this will, to the extent its an issue primarily affect owners/renters to the north and west.

That said, I don't have a problem w/you having such a concern on a personal level. Though I would suggest, if you haven't, that you have a good look at the shadow studies and keep in mind how much shadow for how long etc. As it will be the rare case where someone's property is under continuous shadow.

But IF shadow were your primary area of concern, there are a couple of different tacks to take...........one is to consider whether lowering the maximum height here, or that of the building closest to your property would actually improve things. Would a 30-storey building be any less of an issue? What about 20s? Are you sure 8s wouldn't give you the same issue?

I would note that depending on how buildings are shaped, and whether or not they have a rectangular or oval form, as opposed to square, they may produce considerably less shadow, over less area. So there are ways to look at mitigating that concern other than height reduction.

But I would also encourage you to have a look at the Block Context Plan in the documents to see where Planners imagine your area going in the next 10-20 years. Its entirely possible that your home or your neighbours might be a future development site as well.

Finally, I would note, there are again other ways to address your concern, and here I'm not going to argue for/against, simply point out that there are choices. You could ask for the site to be 'buffered' on one side with generous landscaping (this will not be the case on the major roads, but may be feasible at the north and east sides. This buffer could be privately owned, or could be parkland, though if the latter, you will need your councillor to support the City chipping in to buy a portion of the site for said purpose.

****

I'm not here to argue against your preference or self-interest; only to point out the latter will be best served if you can bring other people who either actively disagree or don't care over to your way of thinking.
 
Northern Light said:
I don't know if you want to share your address publicly (I'm not advising that or asking) but as the site has 4 sides, I can't comment to intelligently on what will or will not be shadowed other than to say this will, to the extent its an issue primarily affect owners/renters to the north and west.

That said, I don't have a problem w/you having such a concern on a personal level. Though I would suggest, if you haven't, that you have a good look at the shadow studies and keep in mind how much shadow for how long etc. As it will be the rare case where someone's property is under continuous shadow.

But IF shadow were your primary area of concern, there are a couple of different tacks to take...........one is to consider whether lowering the maximum height here, or that of the building closest to your property would actually improve things. Would a 30-storey building be any less of an issue? What about 20s? Are you sure 8s wouldn't give you the same issue?

I would note that depending on how buildings are shaped, and whether or not they have a rectangular or oval form, as opposed to square, they may produce considerably less shadow, over less area. So there are ways to look at mitigating that concern other than height reduction.

But I would also encourage you to have a look at the Block Context Plan in the documents to see where Planners imagine your area going in the next 10-20 years. Its entirely possible that your home or your neighbours might be a future development site as well.

Finally, I would note, there are again other ways to address your concern, and here I'm not going to argue for/against, simply point out that there are choices. You could ask for the site to be 'buffered' on one side with generous landscaping (this will not be the case on the major roads, but may be feasible at the north and east sides. This buffer could be privately owned, or could be parkland, though if the latter, you will need your councillor to support the City chipping in to buy a portion of the site for said purpose.

****

I'm not here to argue against your preference or self-interest; only to point out the latter will be best served if you can bring other people who either actively disagree or don't care over to your way of thinking.
Click to expand...
What is your interest in the 8 towers up to 40 storeys high, how does this affect you, are you involved in this project? Lets hear it.
 
GZS said:
What is your interest in the 8 towers up to 40 storeys high, how does this affect you, are you involved in this project? Lets hear it.
Click to expand...

Being demanding of the only poster here to give you the time of day is one of the more amusing choices you could have made; the appropriate reply from you, by the way, was Thank You. For the record I have no financial or professional interest in this property or this proponent.

And I have now, lost all interest in you. Good luck.
 
Northern Light said:
Being demanding of the only poster here to give you the time of day is one of the more amusing choices you could have made; the appropriate reply from you, by the way, was Thank You. For the record I have no financial or professional interest in this property or this proponent.

And I have now, lost all interest in you. Good luck.
Click to expand...
You have the patience of a saint 😄
 
GZS said:
What is your interest in the 8 towers up to 40 storeys high, how does this affect you, are you involved in this project? Lets hear it.
Click to expand...
My name is Dr. RioCan and I can confirm that we are pursuing this project only to make your life miserable. I'd love to field further questions but I'll let this video of our most recent shareholders meeting do the talking:

 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Being demanding of the only poster here to give you the time of day is one of the more amusing choices you could have made; the appropriate reply from you, by the way, was Thank You. For the record I have no financial or professional interest in this property or this proponent.

And I have now, lost all interest in you. Good luck.
Click to expand...
I'm not so sure - really what is your interest - are you for large storey developements, high density be honest.
 
Never fear GZS - Mike Colle is on the case

Colle.jpg
 
Could the rally be guerilla marketing for Winners? What can possibly come of it other than some cranks letting off steam?

I love the proposed sign that just says, with no further context "Enough Condos Already"

I think my dog is inspired to put out his own sign "Enough Squirrels Already"
 
You have 6 posts here (all about this project) to my now 2 posts.

It seems that I’m not the one wearing the bonnet.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top