Toronto One Front | 170.86m | 49s | Larco | a—A

.dwg said:
It's part of his usual clucking and posturing. You can read the "??" as a scoff, an impatient click, or him shaking his head. Or at least that's the tone that comes across...
Click to expand...
To be fair though, it was a reaction to an unreasonably combative post. Drama is often a two way street... >.<
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
To be fair though, it was a reaction to an unreasonably combative post. Drama is often a two way street... >.<
Click to expand...
Come on ....There was nothing combative about my post at all. Saying that the Dominion Building should get two towers on top of it due to the prices of housing in Toronto as well as creating construction jobs was a totally weak argument to justify changing one of the most iconic heritage buildings in our city. I mean how diplomatic do you have to be??
 
Last edited:
C-mac said:
Come on ....There was nothing combative about my post at all. Saying that the Dominion Building should get two towers on top of it due to the prices of housing in Toronto as well as creating construction jobs was a totally weak argument to justify changing one of the most iconic heritage buildings in our city. I mean how diplomatic do you have to be??
Click to expand...
Then which sounds more pleasant to you?

"Give me a break. Not like you're creating new jobs. Don't you worry, anyone is this industry is not going hungry and not going without work."

Or...

"I really don't think the industry suffering for not building here, IMO."

...for me, the examples are saying pretty much the same thing. But I'll wager the latter comes across less like a personal attack and more to the point. And with a hint, "That I might be wrong" ...as it is an opinion after all.

Without further telling others how they should post, (as I really don't want to do that) and more back on topic...sentimentally wise, I tend agree with you on just leaving the building alone. In actuality, I'm not sure that's possible at this point. And I'll leave it at that.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
Then which sounds more pleasant to you?

"Give me a break. Not like your creating new jobs. Don't you worry, anyone is this industry is not going hungry and not going without work."

Or...

"I really don't think the industry suffering for not building here, IMO."

...for me, the examples are saying pretty much the same thing. But I'll wager the latter comes across less like a personal attack and more to the point. And with a hint, "That I might be wrong" ...as it is an opinion after all.

Without further telling others how they should post, (as I really don't want to do that) and more back on topic...sentimentally wise, I tend agree with you on just leaving the building alone. In actuality, I'm not sure that's possible at this point. And I'll leave it at that.
Click to expand...

Your being overly sensitive and reading to much into that post. Again, calling it combative is a complete over reaction.
 
I think people have to come to grips that not every player in the industry is as concerned with aesthetics, architecture and city-building as those of us here, or even compared to the industry average.

Some who fall in that spectrum are international investment capital with no attachment to Toronto, it's just numbers on an excel document to them in some office in some other global city. Others, meanwhile, simply don't care for anything but maximizing their returns.

It's not a strategy I would endorse. I think that philosophy is missing something crucial to their investment strategy and I am glad that there are others out there like Allied REIT who look at heritage elements as strengths and not weaknesses and actively integrate them in their projects to create even better and more resilient product offerings.

The problem here was the Feds not vetting potential purchasers of the site to promote municipal & provincial planning policy objectives and maintain the public interest. Maybe the Feds are too disconnected from city-building and should work with provincial partners (like IO) in the future?
 
WislaHD said:
The problem here was the Feds not vetting potential purchasers of the site to promote municipal & provincial planning policy objectives and maintain the public interest. Maybe the Feds are too disconnected from city-building and should work with provincial partners (like IO) in the future?
Click to expand...
Really? You think IO pay any attention to City Priorities? (Hint: Look at both The Foundry and First Parliament) . The Feds have a responsibility to get as much money as possible for any sites they sell - it's up to the City to approve any plans (and have their refusals over-turned by LPAT!!) In the case of One Front, the site had a long-standing permission to build a tower on top of it that was 'awarded' thanks to an OMB settlement in the early 1990's (for Brookfield Place, I think.)
 
DSC said:
Really? You think IO pay any attention to City Priorities? (Hint: Look at both The Foundry and First Parliament) . The Feds have a responsibility to get as much money as possible for any sites they sell - it's up to the City to approve any plans (and have their refusals over-turned by LPAT!!) In the case of One Front, the site had a long-standing permission to build a tower on top of it that was 'awarded' thanks to an OMB settlement in the early 1990's (for Brookfield Place, I think.)
Click to expand...
Yes, I will defend IO all day because their track record in this city justifies it. Look at the overall successful delivery of the West Don Lands to date, the Grosvenor & Grenville site, 222 Jarvis, the new Renzo Piano courthouse, and provincial assets in the MacDonald Block and Whitney Block areas. They are the most proficient public-sector city-builders in the province and have certainly put others like Metrolinx to shame.

The Foundry and First Parliament sites are the result of the Ministry's meddling in real estate affairs, not Infrastructure Ontario. The blame there should be placed on Doug Ford's government. When the ministry and QP are done mucking around with those sites, it will be Infrastructure Ontario that will have to pick up the pieces and deliver something that appeases both municipal and public stakeholders, MZO or no MZO.
 
I agree that this is mainly an issue of the Feds wanting to milk the property for the maximum value and washing their hands off it. I don't think working with IO (why would they) would have changed the outcome with that forementioned premise. You can see what the Feds could do with adaptive reuse ofheritage properties (should they care enough to) in Ottawa.

AoD
 
Last edited:
C-mac said:
Your being overly sensitive and reading to much into that post. Again, calling it combative is a complete over reaction.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I really care enough to be "sensitive" about this, let alone "overly"...but you asked me how you could present it better of sorts, and I gave you an answer. Take it or leave it.

That said, and putting the tone arguing aside, I stand by what I said on the subject at hand. That is, I don't think this building will be left alone at this point development wise, whether we like it or not.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I'm not sure I really care enough to be "sensitive" about this, let alone "overly"...but you asked me how you could present it better of sorts, and I gave you an answer. Take it or leave it.

That said, and putting the tone arguing aside, I stand by what I said on the subject at hand. That is, I don't think this building will be left alone at this point development wise, whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
👀🍿
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I'm not sure I really care enough to be "sensitive" about this, let alone "overly"...but you asked me how you could present it better of sorts, and I gave you an answer. or not.
Click to expand...
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I'm not sure I really care enough to be "sensitive" about this, let alone "overly"...but you asked me how you could present it better of sorts, and I gave you an answer. Take it or leave it.

That said, and putting the tone arguing aside, I stand by what I said on the subject at hand. That is, I don't think this building will be left alone at this point development wise, whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case I’m not sure why you call my post “combative”, but anyway, we’ll move on.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I'm not sure I really care enough to be "sensitive" about this, let alone "overly"...but you asked me how you could present it better of sorts, and I gave you an answer. Take it or leave it.

That said, and putting the tone arguing aside, I stand by what I said on the subject at hand. That is, I don't think this building will be left alone at this point development wise, whether we like it or not.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone is suggesting this will be left alone. Clearly something will get built here. I'd rather it be left alone but that wont happen, so like many other people here, I just hope whatever they build is somewhat fitting
 
Bjays92 said:
I don't think anyone is suggesting this will be left alone. Clearly something will get built here. I'd rather it be left alone but that wont happen, so like many other people here, I just hope whatever they build is somewhat fitting
Click to expand...
I can't agree with you more. /bows
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top