Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

[Skeezix]

Interesting. Fair of the neighbour's daughter to complain - the "treehouse" blocks light to her backyard (a reason we have zoning rules in the first place), and all they see from their backyard is the ugly wood-panelled rear face. Alpeza appears to have constructed this with little regard for his neighbours.

To be fair to Alpeza, he was told he didn't need a permit. But he was later told in 2014 that he needed a variance, and has done nothing about it. What's more, he now claims to have submitted plans and thought something was ongoing. In his column, Keenan appears to give Alpeza the benefit of the doubt ("It seems possible — likely even — that there has been some miscommunication or misunderstanding here about the process"), but I think Alpeza is being less than honest here. He applied several years ago for variances to add another storey to his house (he won at the CofA, but lost on appeal at the OMB). He knows the CofA process. For him to now say that he submitted drawings and applications "to apply for something" in 2014, and thought he'd made an application, just doesn't seem credible, at least not based on what is in that column.

 

[Skeezix]

 

[Armour]

Indeed. No ipad for you, but here, a 30K SUV treehouse *snicker*. Anyways, perhaps we can have a more Solomonic solution - the treehouse cannot stay in the current position, but it can go to a nearby park (let's forget the OH&S for a second).

AoD

I was just about to suggest that before I read your post. A John Cooper Mansionesque type move to a park would be a good way to salvage it. It's far more interesting than the banal, plastic playgrounds that plopped up around the city 15 years ago.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Neighbours... Sigh.

1952.

Not much has changed it seems.

 

[Johnny Au]

The city should buy the treehouse and move it to a public park. This way, the father can comply with city bylaw and make some money out of it, and the treehouse can be preserved, albeit on another tree in public property. The city could also hire the father to construct more treehouses in public parks (and perhaps a gazebo on a tree). Tourists would flock to see gazebos on trees.

 

[Armour]

The city should buy the treehouse and move it to a public park. This way, the father can comply with city bylaw and make some money out of it, and the treehouse can be preserved, albeit on another tree in public property. The city could also hire the father to construct more treehouses in public parks (and perhaps a gazebo on a tree). Tourists would flock to see gazebos on trees.

I doubt the city would have any interest in hiring the dad to construct new tree houses in public parks, but it would be neat to have creatively designed play structures in our parks. The current infrastructure/recreational equipment is very dull.

 

[Johnny Au]

I doubt the city would have any interest in hiring the dad to construct new tree houses in public parks, but it would be neat to have creatively designed play structures in our parks. The current infrastructure/recreational equipment is very dull.

The city needs to hire creative play structure architects such as that father. The children of Toronto deserve much better play structures amid childhood obesity concerns.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The city needs to hire creative play structure architects such as that father. The children of Toronto deserve much better play structures amid childhood obesity concerns.

Playground built by the city are actually designed by lawyers, never the kids who will use them.

 

[Armour]

The city needs to hire creative play structure architects such as that father. The children of Toronto deserve much better play structures amid childhood obesity concerns.

I don't think there's enough of a discrepancy in standard Toronto play structures vs one of this nature re calorie loss to make any difference in obesity rates. The latter is just more imaginative and intriguing than the former; which would provide for a better experience among users.

Playground built by the city are actually designed by lawyers, never the kids who will use them.

Yes, the plastic playgrounds from the Harris government (I believe it was them who knocked down all the original postwar playgrounds in the city in favour of the current ones) look like they were designed by the Denzil Minnan-Wong's of the world: i.e. low risk, unadventurous designs and cheap, plastic, unanimous identity).

To be fair, the new playgrounds found in parks like Underpass Park and Sherbourne Common appear as though they were designed by artists that probably spent little time horsing around as children. There needs to be a better marriage between creativity, design and function.

Who doesn't miss jumping off catwalks and landing hands first, with gravel getting lodged in the skin of your palms?

 

[Johnny Au]

Playground built by the city are actually designed by lawyers, never the kids who will use them.

Those lawyers must have had sheltered childhoods, spending more time hitting the books than hitting the playground and yes, they apparently forgot that they used to be children.

 

[Armour]

Those lawyers must have had sheltered childhoods, spending more time hitting the books than hitting the playground and yes, they apparently forgot that they used to be children.

Well, Denzil is a lawyer and he just learned to ride a bike about 5 years ago. In his case, your theory seems to be correct. How one grows up in the suburbs and never learns to ride a bike as a kid is beyond me. I thought that was basically automatic for anyone that could afford one.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Well, Denzil is a lawyer and he just learned to ride a bike about 5 years ago. In his case, your theory seems to be correct. How one grows up in the suburbs and never learns to ride a bike as a kid is beyond me. I thought that was basically automatic for anyone that could afford one.

Denzil Minnan-Wong didn't even learn how to ride a bicycle until he became a Councillor. And then he leads the charge against bicycle lanes on Jarvis Street?

 

[gabe]

I don't think there's enough of a discrepancy in standard Toronto play structures vs one of this nature re calorie loss to make any difference in obesity rates. The latter is just more imaginative and intriguing than the former; which would provide for a better experience among users.

Yes, the plastic playgrounds from the Harris government (I believe it was them who knocked down all the original postwar playgrounds in the city in favour of the current ones) look like they were designed by the Denzil Minnan-Wong's of the world: i.e. low risk, unadventurous designs and cheap, plastic, unanimous identity).

To be fair, the new playgrounds found in parks like Underpass Park and Sherbourne Common appear as though they were designed by artists that probably spent little time horsing around as children. There needs to be a better marriage between creativity, design and function.

Who doesn't miss jumping off catwalks and landing hands first, with gravel getting lodged in the skin of your palms?

I remember the old postwar playgrounds. Now a days kids would have to wear a helmet and a safety harness to play on those old climbing structures. How did we survive?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I remember the old postwar playgrounds. Now a days kids would have to wear a helmet and a safety harness to play on those old climbing structures. How did we survive?

Clearly, those who didn't can't post on here

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

View attachment 73549

That's a ridiculous comment, not banal. Talk about taking an issue and twisting it to match your own agenda.