Toronto One Thirty Eight | 144.05m | 31s | Cityzen | BBB

There's also this...
One person who is not against demolition is architect Diamond, 84. He said he wouldn't mind if his red brick construction was torn down, as long as a new building is supported with proper infrastructure and connects pedestrians to the streetscape.

"All the things it did were really important things to do," he told CBC Toronto Thursday. "But it wasn't spectacular, architecturally.

"Cities change."
Click to expand...
 
ShonTron said:
You had city staff quoted in that article as well as to why they were opposed to the development, for the same reasons, and you pick out Councillor Wong-Tam?
Click to expand...

Yes, because she's an elected official misleading the public. It is simply untrue that this development contemplates "losing" a heritage building, as she directly said. And she knows that suggesting that that's the case is a great way to rally the NIMBYs.

I'm not taking exception to city staff's -- or, for that matter, even the councillor's -- position on the development. And I support maintaining heritage buildings wherever and whenever possible. I'm taking exception to the councillor for whom I voted telling the public that these developers want to tear down a heritage building.
 
ProjectEnd said:
There's also this...
Click to expand...

Considering what's being proposed, I think it's not a bad tradeoff. There are far worse examples of demolition by neglect and replacement by junk that I wish staff pays more attention to.

As to KWT - I can't help but recall her utter lack of movement on say the house on Wellesley - caught reactively.

Torontonians have such a funny perception of heritage - nothing solicit more outrage than doing anything to what is ultimately a house.

AoD
 
ADRM said:
Yes, because she's an elected official misleading the public. It is simply untrue that this development contemplates "losing" a heritage building, as she directly said. And she knows that suggesting that that's the case is a great way to rally the NIMBYs.

I'm not taking exception to city staff's -- or, for that matter, even the councillor's -- position on the development. And I support maintaining heritage buildings wherever and whenever possible. I'm taking exception to the councillor for whom I voted telling the public that these developers want to tear down a heritage building.
Click to expand...

OK. I understand. I see a lot of attacks on her on this forum, and much of it unreasonable. There's good reason here.
 
ShonTron said:
OK. I understand. I see a lot of attacks on her on this forum, and much of it unreasonable. There's good reason here.
Click to expand...

Thank you. Without going too OT, I do understand where you're coming from, especially on the KWT front, and FWIW I've been a supporter of hers, both on these forums and in the real world. Much of the abuse she takes is downright nasty, and I wish it weren't the case.

But she pretty much lost me on the development freeze proposal, and deliberately misleading folks about what's happening here is cheap politics and is also just plain wrong. To me, she's exacerbating the development and density divide that plagues this city.

I really like this proposal precisely because they've contemplated what I subjectively deem to be an acceptable maintenance of a building of heritage value, and I also love what they've proposed to give to the city and neighbourhood in terms of the public realm.

It pains me when developers and architects have obviously thought through and are sympathetic to these considerations but are nonetheless subject to this type of article and these type of comments from councillors. They're used to it, sure, but they're also human, and I worry about the chilling effect this sort of thing has on future goodwill on their part.
 
There's an OMB hearing for this scheduled for today.

upload_2017-1-16_12-0-49.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-1-16_12-0-49.png
    upload_2017-1-16_12-0-49.png
    21.9 KB · Views: 779
The OMB site lists this case as open. There is no further hearing scheduled. Have they been negotiating behind the scenes?
 
Decisions can follow the hearings by a few months sometimes.

42
 
^I know of one that took nearly 12 months to have a decision posted. That isn't typical, post times can vary from a few weeks to 2-3 months typically.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top