Toronto Neon Condos | 49.98m | 20s | Pemberton | Graziani + Corazza

Patrick Smyth said:
I don't think you have the planning heft to deal with these issues which is why you glorify tall buildings, swoon over renderings and ignore the merits of good and comprehensive planning.
Click to expand...

What a charmer you are. At least you've got your dukes up now.

I don't "have the planning heft?" What an asinine comment. Condescend much? You launched your unfocused attack here with empty complaints, and all I have asked is that you flesh them out, and actually point them somewhere, which you are finally doing. You don't know if I support this building or not, and you know nothing about me, but you presume to know my understanding of and depth of involvement in TO urban affairs… so good for you in choosing a snotty ad hominem dismissal. Very endearing.

I don't agree with Ramako's characterization that "the vast majority of members of this forum are unabashedly pro-development", as if we accept everything as presented without question. I'm not sure how he can claim to know what the percentages are of who thinks what. I also disagree with his inference that if you've only posted on local issues on Urban Toronto that that's bad. Who is to say how much of the city one has to post about before one is allowed to have a worthwhile opinion? Write about whatever you want to Patrick…
 
"You do not appear to have much knowledge of what city planning involves."

No, you don't. Are you aware of the Official Plan and how it identifies areas as Neighbourhoods, Apartment-Neighbourhoods, Avenues, Mixed-use, Growth Centres, etc? It did that so that areas are treated differently when it comes to development. The area in question is designated as Apartment-Neighbourhoods and under the OP is not intended for intensification. Yes, we have policies that deal with areas within a certain distance of a transit node but we also have policies with respect to Transition - angular plane, sunlight, sky view, privacy etc. There's never a good reason to trash those in favour of an insensitive developer or an ambitious politician, at least not if good and comprehensive planning is on your mind. you seem to be one-dimensional in that regard. BTW, I attended the OMB in April to give a sworn statement in favour of the 48 storey proposal from Premium Properties at the corner of Eglinton West and Duplex. I reckoned that where major intensification should happen before we gobble-up Apartment-Neighbourhoods areas. The City Planners and local councillor were there in opposition to the proposal. Go figure! They approved of an application that intensified the NEON site by over 11 times what was allowed but spent $100 of thousands objecting to intensification of only 4 times what is permitted in the Growth Centre where the Premium is located. Therein lies the problem with how planning is currently being done in my part of the city.
 
You're conflicted, alright. Maybe you should ponder Ramako's words some more, even though you appear to be outside the norm. He strikes me as fairly typical of the lightweights when it comes to anything other than adoration of condo buildings.
 
Could we have a cooler discussion in here please, aimed at the issues, and not at other members? Further surly, insulting posts will be vaporized.

Patrick Smyth: please use the Reply With Quote button to make it perfectly clear whom you are quoting. Thanks.

42
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
I don't agree with Ramako's characterization that "the vast majority of members of this forum are unabashedly pro-development", as if we accept everything as presented without question. I'm not sure how he can claim to know what the percentages are of who thinks what. I also disagree with his inference that if you've only posted on local issues on Urban Toronto that that's bad. Who is to say how much of the city one has to post about before one is allowed to have a worthwhile opinion? Write about whatever you want to Patrick…
Click to expand...

Perhaps I didn't parse my words properly. I didn't mean to imply that the vast majority of forum members would blindly swallow anything a developer proposed. That's absolutely not true. My point was simply that typically the heights and densities that members of this board prefer often exceed those heights and densities that the average person, uninterested in development, prefer. I'm basing that on nothing but casual observation from my time here. Naturally, most of us are here because we like development and increased density.

I also didn't mean to imply that those who post only about local issues were bad. I was responding to his claim that those of us who support developments such as this one only do so because we are investors or "condo vultures" as he put it... "people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet". His implication was that our positions were subjective and selfish. My point was that, rather, it is his position that is subjective and selfish because as a local resident, unlike most of us here, he is directly impacted by this development and has a direct and personal interest in the outcome.
 
Patrick Smyth said:
You're conflicted, alright. Maybe you should ponder Ramako's words some more, even though you appear to be outside the norm. He strikes me as fairly typical of the lightweights when it comes to anything other than adoration of condo buildings.
Click to expand...

I think it's telling that, despite not knowing anything about me (aside from the fact that I'm generally pro-development), you've proclaimed my ignorance with respect to the planning regime in this city, simply based on the fact that I disagree with you. In fact, I'm not as much of a "lightweight" as you seem to think. I am a commercial real estate lawyer after all. Perhaps what you fail to appreciate is not that I don't understand the Official Plan or the planning process, but rather that I don't necessarily have your level of reverence for the Official Plan or the planners. You can go on all you'd like about how this neighbourhood is identified at X and that site calls for Y times density, but with all due respect, I don't have to agree with Official Plan, the planners, the councillor, the OMB or you.
 
Ramako said:
Perhaps I didn't parse my words properly. I didn't mean to imply that the vast majority of forum members would blindly swallow anything a developer proposed. That's absolutely not true. My point was simply that typically the heights and densities that members of this board prefer often exceed those heights and densities that the average person, uninterested in development, prefer. I'm basing that on nothing but casual observation from my time here. Naturally, most of us are here because we like development and increased density.

I also didn't mean to imply that those who post only about local issues were bad. I was responding to his claim that those of us who support developments such as this one only do so because we are investors or "condo vultures" as he put it... "people are only interested in their own little 500 square feet". His implication was that our positions were subjective and selfish. My point was that, rather, it is his position that is subjective and selfish because as a local resident, unlike most of us here, he is directly impacted by this development and has a direct and personal interest in the outcome.
Click to expand...

I don't think it is fair to use the derogatory term, "NIMBY", against somebody who is concerned about a development in their immediate area. I think it is commendable to take an interest in developments affecting where you live. I've seen too many take no interest, until it's too late. For a concerned citizen these days to participate in planning matters you have to display a high degree of knowledge on the subject. For many that can be a great challenge. This should be encouraged and they deserve not to be marginalized. All too often, I've heard false warnings from politicians and developers designed only to suppress reasonable opposition. There was a lot wrong with the "process" the NEON went through and we should all take an interest if city building is on our minds.
 
Ramako said:
I think it's telling that, despite not knowing anything about me (aside from the fact that I'm generally pro-development), you've proclaimed my ignorance with respect to the planning regime in this city, simply based on the fact that I disagree with you. In fact, I'm not as much of a "lightweight" as you seem to think. I am a commercial real estate lawyer after all. Perhaps what you fail to appreciate is not that I don't understand the Official Plan or the planning process, but rather that I don't necessarily have your level of reverence for the Official Plan or the planners. You can go on all you'd like about how this neighbourhood is identified at X and that site calls for Y times density, but with all due respect, I don't have to agree with Official Plan, the planners, the councillor, the OMB or you.
Click to expand...

Yes, I figured you were lightweight on planning issues and fairly typical of the vast majority here who simply adore height and density. I find it plausible too that you have very little regard for the policies and bylaws that citizens are encouraged to adhere to and respect. It's what makes for a liveable and equitable city.
 
Patrick Smyth said:
I don't think it is fair to use the derogatory term, "NIMBY", against somebody who is concerned about a development in their immediate area. QUOTE]


Definition of NIMBY is Not In My BackYard,,,

How else would you define these people. Also what about the fact that most people hate change.. So if it were up to them nothing would ever happen in their own area. If thats what happened there would be forever sprawl. We have run out of space and people need to move somewhere.. Im all ears to genius ideas to how to grow a city but not to add density.
Click to expand...
 
Patrick Smyth said:
You're the best example so far.

It's not about value, it's about what we all signed-off on when the new OP came into existence. Things like Transition, improvements to the public realm and respect for existing residents are what it was about. How this was actually handled was more like how they do things in China. I don't live near the building. And, if I had a 2000 square foot home close to a subway, and it was an OP-designated "neighbourhoods" area, I would have every right to voice concern. You would probably still see that as NIMBY. Accusations of NIMBYism are common among the selfish political class, developers and ignorant wannabe planners.
Click to expand...

How am I the best example so far, I lived there and while I was there I still thought the area needed more intense development. Btw I am none of those things you just listed, I live a minimalist lifestyle where possible and have no angle or bias here, just personal opinion, and yet I still know the negative effects a nimby can have on the process as well as I know the negative effect a greedy developer can have from the other side of the process. Personally I would prefer something in the middle, a compromise so to speak, but then again we see where that has gotten Obama so far right? (jk)

I lived in the neighbourhood, and would agree with you probably that buildings such as 500 Duplex are far and away too high for the site they sit upon. However, the OP called for taller buildings close to the major intersections and transit hubs, and then midrises along avenues. Well this sir is a on the tall side of midrise, but it is also very very close to Yonge and Egg, therefore it would fit pretty closely to the OP no?
 
sixrings said:
Patrick Smyth said:
I don't think it is fair to use the derogatory term, "NIMBY", against somebody who is concerned about a development in their immediate area. QUOTE]


Definition of NIMBY is Not In My BackYard,, How else would you define these people. Also what about the fact that most people hate change.. So if it were up to them nothing would ever happen in their own area. If thats what happened there would be forever sprawl. We have run out of space and people need to move somewhere.. Im all ears to genius ideas to how to grow a city but not to add density.
Click to expand...

We don't need to define people, we need to debate what is good and bad planning. It's not fair to taint those who do as NIMBYs. In 17 years of working on planning issues in my community I have not met one person who does not understand the need for intensification. That's why we all signed-off on the Official Plan. It was supposed to direct where the necessary intensification was to occur.
Click to expand...
 
mckarisma said:
How am I the best example so far, I lived there and while I was there I still thought the area needed more intense development. Btw I am none of those things you just listed, I live a minimalist lifestyle where possible and have no angle or bias here, just personal opinion, and yet I still know the negative effects a nimby can have on the process as well as I know the negative effect a greedy developer can have from the other side of the process. Personally I would prefer something in the middle, a compromise so to speak, but then again we see where that has gotten Obama so far right? (jk) I lived in the neighbourhood, and would agree with you probably that buildings such as 500 Duplex are far and away too high for the site they sit upon. However, the OP called for taller buildings close to the major intersections and transit hubs, and then midrises along avenues. Well this sir is a on the tall side of midrise, but it is also very very close to Yonge and Egg, therefore it would fit pretty closely to the OP no?
Click to expand...

I wonder why you think 500 Duplex is too high? Notice how much open/green space there is? Notice how offensive the NEON will be? 500 Duplex is described as a "tower in a park". Buildings being approved now extend right to the property line and in NEON's cases even occupy part of the public realm. All to satisfy the developer, and ignoring the OP and planning policies. The NEON is not in an area intended for tall building intensification. That's why, time and again (for 8 years), it was refused by the TO Planning Department and at Council. How it eventually got approved is where there should be more focus. The NEON was approved at 11 times the permitted density. The buildings in the same block are in the 3 to 5 times range. Even the buildings in the YE Growth Centre are no greater than 8 times density, even after the additional RIOCAN storeys! That should tell you how offensive the NEON will be. Our community proposal was a compromise. We suggested 3 additional storeys for a better footprint and an improved public realm. It had a suggested density of just over 8 times. We weren't anti height and density. We were looking for a reasonable compromise. The developer cherry-picked the additional 3 storeys and ignored the compromise part. The local councillor and the TO Planning Department sided with the developer. People who object to, or see the dangers of, bad planning are to be commended. They are opposed by powerful forces. (Ask yourself why Toronto is unable to recruit a new Chief Planner and ponder the current state of the TO Planning Dept)
 
Patrick Smyth said:
I wonder why you think 500 Duplex is too high? Notice how much open/green space there is? Notice how offensive the NEON will be? 500 Duplex is described as a "tower in a park". Buildings being approved now extend right to the property line and in NEON's cases even occupy part of the public realm. All to satisfy the developer, and ignoring the OP and planning policies. The NEON is not in an area intended for tall building intensification. That's why, time and again (for 8 years), it was refused by the TO Planning Department and at Council. How it eventually got approved is where there should be more focus.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that the "tower in a park" model, rather than building up to the property line, represents good planning?

Well, I guess if the OP says so, right?
 
Ramako said:
Are you suggesting that the "tower in a park" model, rather than building up to the property line, represents good planning? Well, I guess if the OP says so, right?
Click to expand...

The OP makes no comment on such matters. It's not that kind of document. I mention 'towers-in-the-park' by way of comparing how much open space they allowed for. Whereas the current penchant for 'Tall Buildings' is swallowing-up open space and abusing the public realm, sometimes as offensively as the NEON. I see the direct link between open space and quality of life. Do you agree? How important is open space for you? Regardless of the magnitude or extent of intensification there must be a good and comprehensive public realm outcome. That didn't happen with the NEON. It was as if the planners had gone blind! It will be a great example of bad planning for a very long time.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top