Toronto Maverick | 154.53m | 49s | Empire | Arcadis

Mike in TO said:
The letter writer is also with Save Queen Street and the Beach Residents Association - apparently doesn't have much love for planners following their professional support for six-storey mid-rise along an avenue with frequent streetcar service.
Click to expand...

yes, that is me.

Is this a "scientific" opinion? So, the mere presence of a streetcar line justifies 6 storeys? The community was built around the streetcar - a "stretcar suburb", from a time when it was in the country and cars were a novelty for the rich. From this logic, all major streets with streetcar lines should be a 1:1 ratio, regardless of other considerations.. like the fact that the 501 streetcar is unrelaible and at the end of the line, Queen is effectively a dead-end as it connects to no major streets east of Woodbine, and it is identified as a potential heriage area.

What is funny is that Queen Street from University to Bathurst does not automitacally get midrise buildings, despite being downtown, while Queen and every other avenue is governed by the Avenues Guidelines... ooops - Queen East was removed by Council and the planners refused to accept policy - lets see a private sector planner ignore the directions of their employers.

The Official Plan Avenues policies are ignored - there was supposed to be no "one size fits all" policy and each Avenue was supposed to have an Avenue Study before redevelopment precedents took place - (the "Avenue Segment Review" provision was because the City could not just apply an Interim Control Bylaw for all the Avenues and get them all done within 2 years).

Some Avenues "already" have appropriate zoning or are to have no growth - apparently that only applies until a rezoning application comes in...

I usually ignore this website because it is a foregone conclusion about the views that will be expressed.
 
waterloowarrior said:
I'm surprised the planners weren't also accused of being in cahoots with the developers. I'm sure planners wish they could be more subjective "Your condo proposal meets all our policies but I don't like the design... go back to the drawing board and replace G&C with aA" "I think big box stores are bad so please go away SmartCentres.
Click to expand...

Planners are saints without any self-interest or biases, I guess.

Ever hear of "Urban Design" guidelines or panels? Site Plan Control? Minimum height, minimum setback"build to" lines or other rules that discourage the "big box store and massive parking lot in front" model? The Beach has a "maximum retail unit size" in many places... ultimately our planning rules are designed to implement opinions and personal taste rather than leaving up to the property owners to decide on their own, even if their intention is just a quick flip to maximise profit and not for any long term interest in the adjacent public realm.
 
rather than leaving up to the property owners to decide on their own
Click to expand...

Private property rights are not unlimited and it has long been a staple of planning law decided in the 1800's when building codes were established to combat disease. Don't delude yourself that you have private property rights to build whatever you want, you don't.

as for the beaches, it has much stronger transit service than many avenues, and a "potential heritage district" does not mean no development in the area and is exactly that, a potential heritage district. you could label most of the city under that.

Paris is absolutely a planned city. It is the child of Haussmann.

Queen from University to Bathurst is a designated heritage district with much more significant historic architecture than the beaches.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
Private property rights are not unlimited and it has long been a staple of planning law decided in the 1800's when building codes were established to combat disease. Don't delude yourself that you have private property rights to build whatever you want, you don't.

as for the beaches, it has much stronger transit service than many avenues, and a "potential heritage district" does not mean no development in the area and is exactly that, a potential heritage district. you could label most of the city under that.

Paris is absolutely a planned city. It is the child of Haussmann.

Queen from University to Bathurst is a designated heritage district with much more significant historic architecture than the beaches.
Click to expand...

I know full well that property rights are not unlimited - even prior to single use zoning that came into effect early in the 20th century.

Yes, there are some Avenues, like maybe O'Connor, that have poorer transit service than Queen East of Woodbine - but they also do not have the congestion and parking issues of The Beach either. The problem here is that somehow because of the PPS and GGH, transit has become the justification for midrise buildings rather than looking at the whole picture.

There are 91 potential heritage areas... the problem is that this seemed to count for nothing so that by the time most of them get studied, they will be a mix of heights densities and built forms, and the very qualities that were identified might have been permanently compromised and irreversible precedents set that will lead to even worse changes to come... on Queen, Councillor McMahon refused to stop the 6 storey Lick's condos because 2012 Queen had supposedly become the binding precedent allowed by her predecessor (Bussin) - except that 2012 Queen is 16.5m, not 20m, and the Committee of adjustment approved a 3 storey building, and the other 3 storeys were cramped "mezzanines"

(Lets talk"science" here - what is the difference between a "messainie" and a full storey? the answer is "none" - it is merely a question of if you want to make a building sound more massive or less massive, depending on what is in your or your clients interests)

I never said that Paris was not "planned" clearly the bulk of it was not, and Haussmann would not have claimed that is was "science" unless the science involves the best Avenue width for moving in the military to quash riots.

Qther Queen HCD likely has more merit - hard to say or compare as I think that 1950s era Don Mills has a lot of merit too. The problem is that the city has been slow in putting in place protections, due to lack of staff and funding - the city will not pay to study most areas even if they have been approved for an HCD study, so many heritage areas will be lessened in value by the time protection occurs if it ever does.
 
So is this it? The fight to fully preserve the look and feel of restaurant row is lost?
Anyone have any further details on this project? Is it likely they actually build a 40+ story condo tower?
 
The fight's been over for a couple of years, @Mo York, per the applications at the City. This project and the one to the east both have to preserve the heritage facades, if that's any consolation. One small consolation for me is that when the project to the east gets going, so will Fred's Not Here. What with all the squawking owner Fred Luk has been doing about the Pilot (over his at-best mediocre restaurant), I won't be sad to see their doors close for good.

42
 
interchange42 said:
The fight's been over for a couple of years, @Mo York, per the applications at the City. This project and the one to the east both have to preserve the heritage facades, if that's any consolation. One small consolation for me is that when the project to the east gets going, so will Fred's Not Here. What with all the squawking owner Fred Luk has been doing about the Pilot (over his at-best mediocre restaurant), I won't be sad to see their doors close for good.

42
Click to expand...

Can't wait until Fred is literally Not Here.
 
interchange42 said:
The fight's been over for a couple of years, @Mo York, per the applications at the City. This project and the one to the east both have to preserve the heritage facades, if that's any consolation. One small consolation for me is that when the project to the east gets going, so will Fred's Not Here. What with all the squawking owner Fred Luk has been doing about the Pilot (over his at-best mediocre restaurant), I won't be sad to see their doors close for good.

42
Click to expand...

Agreed. I used to be kind of wistful about Restaurant Row's time being up – not because the restaurants were very good (they aren't, in the main) or because I go there frequently (I never do), just out of a vague sense of nostalgia and feeling like it's sort of charming. Not any more, though.
 
I remember going to Fred's Not Here and the Red Tomato, but that was 20 years ago.
It was good back in the days but now those restaurants seem tired and not in touch with today's food and restaurant scene.
The city is growing and they are just not comfortable with change or not keeping up with change (whether it be development, transit, changing demographics, increasing rents, etc.). You can't be doing the same thing for over 20 years and expect to stay successful and profitable without evolving your business from time to time. Successful businesses are always adapting -- they have to serve rather than being served.
 
interchange42 said:
The fight's been over for a couple of years, @Mo York, per the applications at the City. This project and the one to the east both have to preserve the heritage facades, if that's any consolation. One small consolation for me is that when the project to the east gets going, so will Fred's Not Here. What with all the squawking owner Fred Luk has been doing about the Pilot (over his at-best mediocre restaurant), I won't be sad to see their doors close for good.
42
Click to expand...

His restaurant is part of this project is it not?? Based on the documents from a few pages back. It's part of the land assembly as well per the Realnet listing

MSU4Rny.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top