Toronto Richview Square | 103.75m | 31s | Trinity Group | B+H

Towered · Feb 3, 2023

SaugeenJunction said:
I am reading this thread and literally laughing out loud. Good on the developer for absolutely reking the NIMBYs with this. All around amazing.

Indeed. Now if only all those awful townhomes built on the northern side of Eglinton in the past decade could get pulverized and replaced with towers...

Oldtorontonian129303 · May 2, 2023

Towered said:
Indeed. Now if only all those awful townhomes built on the northern side of Eglinton in the past decade could get pulverized and replaced with towers...

These are homes people live in, you can't just kick out people because of your selfish idealistic idea of optimal land usage... and for who, a bunch of millionaire developers - stop with the bootlicking and propose some new solution. I've seen you repeat this evil idea multiple times on this forum. The failure of past decisions doesn't give you the right to disrupt and ruin the lives of 75 families that live on that street. If your proposal involves displacing 75 families, then you have failed in creating a proposition of any value, go back to the drawing board. I am completely supportive if the initial development plan proceeded with tower developments, but it didn't - time to move on.

SaugeenJunction · May 3, 2023

Oldtorontonian129303 said:
These are homes people live in, you can't just kick out people because of your selfish idealistic idea of optimal land usage... and for who, a bunch of millionaire developers - stop with the bootlicking and propose some new solution. I've seen you repeat this evil idea multiple times on this forum. The failure of past decisions doesn't give you the right to disrupt and ruin the lives of 75 families that live on that street. If your proposal involves displacing 75 families, then you have failed in creating a proposition of any value, go back to the drawing board. I am completely supportive if the initial development plan proceeded with tower developments, but it didn't - time to move on.

Username checks out

Undead · May 3, 2023

No one's kicking anyone out from anywhere. It's their property, they can decide whether to sell to a developer or hold. edit: that being said, there's plenty of unhelpful urbanist emoting out there.

Oldtorontonian129303 · May 4, 2023

SaugeenJunction said:
Username checks out

You have no valuable response, so you bring out the teasing, real mature of you, btw im not as old as you might think

Oldtorontonian129303 · May 4, 2023

Undead said:
No one's kicking anyone out from anywhere. It's their property, they can decide whether to sell to a developer or hold. edit: that being said, there's plenty of unhelpful urbanist emoting out there.

It's obvious developers will be paying, but you forget the tactics they go through to pressure people out of their homes (happens all the time in Ontario, especially in rural areas - have been the witness of this), if they have really set their eye on it.

Northern Light · May 4, 2023

Oldtorontonian129303 said:
You have no valuable response, so you bring out the teasing, real mature of you

That was pretty gentle, really. We pride ourselves on this forum of being welcoming of newcomers, and of differing views.
I personally go out of my way on this point, even when expressing disagreement.

But your assertion was very extreme, you can't use the word 'evil' about something that doesn't involve, at the very least, a criminal act, and expect to be given a serious, thoughtful response.

****

Further, as you've acknowledged in a subsequent post, no one was talking about anyone being forced out of anywhere.

Implying different is either being willfully misleading or sadly obtuse.

What was being expressed is that the development that took place was inappropriate for the site, and ought never to have been done, and it will be nice when that mistake is corrected.
That is all.

ALL development is predicated on someone choosing to sell their land to a buyer who wishes to develop or redevelop it.
There is no magic situation that occurs in which land that is developed had no previous existence.

No one is expressing ill intent towards the current homeowners.
Merely that they look forward to offers being made which result in the sale of those homes for a more intensive land use.

That is how all development occurs.

Oldtorontonian129303 · May 4, 2023

Northern Light said:
That was pretty gentle, really. We pride ourselves on this forum of being welcoming of newcomers, and of differing views.
I personally go out of my way on this point, even when expressing disagreement.

But your assertion was very extreme, you can't use the word 'evil' about something that doesn't involve, at the very least, a criminal act, and expect to be given a serious, thoughtful response.

****

Further, as you've acknowledged in a subsequent post, no one was talking about anyone being forced out of anywhere.

Implying different is either being willfully misleading or sadly obtuse.

What was being expressed is that the development that took place was inappropriate for the site, and ought never to have been done, and it will be nice when that mistake is corrected.
That is all.

ALL development is predicated on someone choosing to sell their land to a buyer who wishes to develop or redevelop it.
There is no magic situation that occurs in which land that is developed had no previous existence.

No one is expressing ill intent towards the current homeowners.
Merely that they look forward to offers being made which result in the sale of those homes for a more intensive land use.

That is how all development occurs.

First of all, the comment I replied to assumed I was of an older age group (due to my username), implying that my comment is worthless for the fact that I might be old, or dare I say a "boomer" (I'm in my 20s just fyi, just put that as a quick username to reply) - is this acceptable in this forum? Age discrimination?

Second, I explained in my Initial message and in my second reply that im not against developments that repurpose commercial areas (such as richview or humbertown), and I agreed this was a failed decision taken by the city to develop these lands the way they were. Sure, a redevelopment that would "PULVERIZE" all of those "AWFUL" townhomes would be optimal in an ideal world, but as mentioned in a previous reply: " you forget the tactics they (developers) go through to pressure people out of their homes (happens all the time in Ontario, especially in rural areas - have been the witness of this), if they have really set their eye on it." - this is what I think is evil (since you criticized my use of it), and I do believe that using pressure tactics, or forcing homeowners to settle for low selling prices is practically kicking them out (because they're not willfully leaving - they have no other choice) .

ProjectEnd · May 5, 2023

This is not a thing that's happening. Why are we still talking about it?

artyboy123 · May 16, 2023

new rendering for building C which is taken from the recent minor variance filing. No new info was updated.

Northern Light · Jul 11, 2023

This one is at the Design Review Panel, this Thursday, July 13th:

HousingNowTO · Jul 13, 2023

Northern Light said:
This one is at the Design Review Panel, this Thursday, July 13th:

View attachment 491578

We watched the DRP --- So you didn't have to...

City slides -

ZOOM in on 99 x Affordable Rental units.

"Zoned as RESIDENTIAL-COMMERCIAL... with NO Residential permitted..." - Strong Etobicoke-Planner vibes in that phrase.

PREVIOUS Approval

HousingNowTO · Jul 13, 2023

City slides (cont'd) -

"...the site is located along the transit corridor in the official plan... the site is located on the Eglinton West LRT extension line and is near stations at KIPLING and ISLINGTON...

...However, in the growth plan, the Eglinton West LRT extension line has NOT been identified as a 'Priority Transit Corridor'..."

Note : Etobicoke-Centre gonna Etobicoke-Centre