News   Apr 23, 2024
Madison Resubmits Midtown Proposals with Viñoly-Designed Towers
 1.6K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 536     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 1.3K     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

blixtex said:
Why not allow a patio bar? Or a Tim Hortons type operations in a residential neighbourhood?
Click to expand...

Why not indeed! Exclusionary zoning is like a malignancy that needs to be cut out and burned. It's ruined cities in this country and led to the massive WASTE of some of the world's best agricultural land in Southern Ontario. Nobody needs to live in detached single family dwelling; everybody needs food security and clean water.
 
DSC said:
See:
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2018/04/12/consider-the-character-of-a-neighbourhood-that-rejects-a-daycare.html
Click to expand...

From the article: How scarred and dark the psyche of an adult human being would have to be for her to stand up in a room full of other people and suggest that strollers on a front porch present an unbearable “heritage concern” or a threat to the “character” of a neighbourhood.

I'm telling you, send help to these people.

Where's the uproar about cars ruining the heritage characteristics of the neighbourhood? What about that TV I can see through your front window? I hope these people aren't walking around yapping on mobile phones either. Shouldn't they be heating their homes with coal as well?


Also from the article above: Indeed, it seems to me that if somehow the presence of children threatens the character of your neighbourhood, then the character of your neighbourhood sucks. And if you find yourself arguing for the preservation of that character over serving the needs of a living urban community of your neighbours, consider that you might benefit from spending some time reflecting on your own character instead.

Tell them again, Mr Keenan!
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
Think about grandparents who take in all the grandkids. Could be more than "max 5 kids".
Click to expand...

Hmm sure, I guess people can do that, but for me, I'm talking about Licensed daycare that are regulated and inspected. I guess there are parents who don't give 2 cents, sending their kids to unregulated private daycare and not even checking on how many other children are there per adult.
 
blixtex said:
Think of trying to open a large restaurant or bar in the neighbourhood. And no, it's not the same as a shelter. A Daycare is FOR Profit. Why not allow a patio bar? Or a Tim Hortons type operations in a residential neighbourhood? I guess many areas had transitioned before when the rules were different (also notice businesses in residential are near/corner of more major streets), grandfathered in, etc or the houses were built around a commercially zoned business.

These owners tried to get around it by buying a property that would have been much cheaper than the equivalent commercial zoned version of it. Taking a short-cut to maximize their profit without realizing the infrastructure limitation. A 1 lane 1 way street is also a signal that it's not meant for a full scare commercial operation.
Click to expand...

What infrastructure limitation? There's a daycare around the corner from my dad's place which might be on the same scale of this one, but then Eglinton and Mount Pleasant doesn't have the same "heritage" character. Otherwise, my father-in-law runs a daycare, and I suppose it's "for-profit" inasmuch as it's a small business. But so what? The rejection of this proposal is utterly indefensible and the "arguments" against it are beyond asinine.
 
Why shouldn't you want these grandparents to watch over their grandkids?

712d3f3442780a5c239411a8444d5d65.jpg

From link.

Insert villainous music here. lol.
 
JGHali said:
What infrastructure limitation? There's a daycare around the corner from my dad's place which might be on the same scale of this one, but then Eglinton and Mount Pleasant doesn't have the same "heritage" character. Otherwise, my father-in-law runs a daycare, and I suppose it's "for-profit" inasmuch as it's a small business. But so what? The rejection of this proposal is utterly indefensible and the "arguments" against it are beyond asinine.
Click to expand...

I find neighbourhoods close to a busy street or intersection have larger businesses which the city allows or zones it. Eglinton is a major through way. I also mentioned some places have old grandfathered zones, or houses were built around it knowing it was that. Give me the address of that daycare, and I'll bet I can see why it's there vs converting one in a one way, quieter intersection.

Sure, the Cabbagetown folks are 'kooky', it's been known for awhile. But even at the Eg & Mt. Pleasant area, I bet you move it further north closer to Lawrence such as where that 'dip' is in a much quieter intersection, I bet it will meet with resistance. And city staff will look at the limitations of the roads around it (Mt. Pleasant is also a decently large street). They have intersecting roads like Broadway Ave, Roehampton. that are double lane, quiet wide, highly travelled alternate routes that can also accommodate parking. Large Apartment buildings are zoned for that area too (west of Mt. Pleasant). So I consider it a much more open neighbourhood. House lots are much much wider too resulting in McMansions too. I rented at Yonge n Eg and drove through the area alot visiting my parents at Kennedy and Eglinton. Looked around for houses too in the neighbourhood around 2010-2012 (of course kicking myself for not pulling the trigger). There are large schools, etc. So that area which is newer than Cabbagetown is constructed for 'larger' and more varied structures.

Edit: also, what is considered small? How much staff and Children?
 
blixtex said:
Sure, the Cabbagetown folks are 'kooky', it's been known for awhile.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but the Cabbagetown residents quoted above aren't "kooky". They're straight psychologically afflicted and spiritually stunted shadows of human beings.

Kooky, my eye.
 
Meanwhile, Charity hasn't stopped making waves in Markham:

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ham-cow-statue-on-hold-amid-court-battle.html

Last fall Markham city council voted to move Charity to greener pastures, after complaints from local residents that the stainless steel bovine on stilts was “terrifyingly close” to their homes in Cathedraltown, near Elgin Mills Rd. and Major Mackenzie Dr.

The decision was expedited last week, after residents said they found a sharp leaf from the wreath around Charity’s neck on the ground after a violent wind storm. That sparked concerns that another harsh storm could result in the sharp leaves “impaling” their children, a resident told council last week.
Click to expand...

AoD
 
The residents live in a car-oriented neighbourhood, where the needs of drivers are placed above all other considerations, including the safety of pedestrians and bystanders, and (if they are like drivers everywhere else) they drive way too fast on residential streets. Yet, their main worry is that part of a statue might "impale" their children. Okay.
 
Isn't the impaling of children a part of the theory of evolution? I mean, children with specific genes, of course.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top