Toronto TeaHouse 501 Yonge Condominiums | 170.98m | 52s | Lanterra | a—A

SP!RE said:
I never said that to a degree self-interest wasn't a good thing. You have probably only read a couple posts and instantly became defensive.

I am talking about the numerous people who seem to think a park or 3-floor development should go there. That's completely unrealistic, and doesn't serve the greater good, which is to increase the population and density of the city. It's selfish to think a development should be scaled back to ridiculously small proportions (you'll notice I AM in favour of something less than 58 floors here though, or at least a much smaller podium) simply to save your view or stop shadows from going on to your balcony.
Click to expand...

You did refer with derision to "self-interested" people not once but twice in your post. And to repeat myself Sp!RE, we are all motivated by our self-interest. It's the way societies roll. As for your red herring about meeting participants feeling the "development should be scaled back to ridiculously small proportions," what are ridiculous sizes in your opinion? Further, I was at the meeting and other than one or two people (one of whom suggested a park), I don't recall anyone being specific about scale they would like to see. I just heard a lot of people very anxious about what is being proposed for the neighbourhood in which they live and run businesses. So, I don't know how you can make the statement you just did other than assuming that it welled up from some deep-seated bias against "plain-ole" citizens who are trying to make themselves heard in a community forum. If I didn't know any better, I would suggest that a form of elitism is at work here.
 
Under the circumstances Lanterra should be given a pass on the parking garage requirement. The subway runs under the freakin' building, hello?? Scale the building back a tad and make the units/design concept appropriate to urbanites who choose to live in the very heart of the city and who - surprise of surprises - may very likely also choose not to have a car, voila! Is this really that difficult?? Never mind the fact that it is extremely regressive to propose an above-ground parking garage for Yonge Street. Have we learned absolutely nothing about urbanism??
 
If I remember correctly the number of parking spots were also cut back for the Met at Yonge + College as well, so I can imagine the chances of some reduction is pretty good.

AoD
 
AlphaTO said:
You did refer with derision to "self-interested" people not once but twice in your post. And to repeat myself Sp!RE, we are all motivated by our self-interest. It's the way societies roll. As for your red herring about meeting participants feeling the "development should be scaled back to ridiculously small proportions," what are ridiculous sizes in your opinion? Further, I was at the meeting and other than one or two people (one of whom suggested a park), I don't recall anyone being specific about scale they would like to see. I just heard a lot of people very anxious about what is being proposed for the neighbourhood in which they live and run businesses. So, I don't know how you can make the statement you just did other than assuming that it welled up from some deep-seated bias against "plain-ole" citizens who are trying to make themselves heard in a community forum. If I didn't know any better, I would suggest that a form of elitism is at work here.
Click to expand...

Several people referred to a height of 12 floors. Two people mentioned a park. As for elitism? No, you don't know any better. ;)
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
If I remember correctly the number of parking spots were also cut back for the Met at Yonge + College as well, so I can imagine the chances of some reduction is pretty good.

AoD
Click to expand...

I live at the MET and I can vouch for the fact that there is almost never a shortage of parking. Even the guest parking (which obviously gets tight on weekends, but that is to be expected) usually has extra space. I was always impressed about this.

Admittedly, the laneway behind 501 Yonge does worry me (as many neighbourhood residents pointed out) because at rush-hour, there is sometimes a bit of a traffic jam in the courtyard of The MET, but it's never terrible. Then, I don't drive so it doesn't really affect me a whole lot.
 
SP!RE said:
Several people referred to a height of 12 floors. Two people mentioned a park. As for elitism? No, you don't know any better. ;)
Click to expand...

Let's be precise (I took notes) so as not to tar the attendants with the same brush. One person stood up and referred to other cities with successful mixes of dwellings and commercial spaces at 12 floors and they provided as an example Paris. This person was supported by some members of the audience. As for a park, only one person stood up and suggested it (not two as you assert). This person received mixed support from the audience. There was another member of the audience who asked why there was no mention of green space in Lanterra's submission. Perhaps you are thinking of this person. Needless to say, there is a difference between building green spaces and parks.
 
I stand by my feelings which is that although many constructive comments were made, most people only attacked the size of the proposal without any realistic suggestions for improvement. All I heard were complaints.

In addition to this, most complaints were about height and shadowing, both of which I have little sympathy for. This is Yonge Street. Over a subway line. The world does not revolve around people who live in neighbouring apartments (whose buildings were once tall for the area and considered inappropriately scaled). It's just uncreative to argue about shadowing... what is even so bad about shadowing? (That's my opinion, again.)

If people had focused their argument on REDUCING parking, and making the podium smaller by doing this, and focused on how to create a nice face for the neighbourhood at street level and in the design of the podium, then I'd give credit where it was due. But instead all I heard were complaints, negativity, and people mocking the architect for his efforts at covering up the parking garage. It's hard to take people seriously when they show up and simply complain about height and shadows (some of them were people living in highrise condos, ironically). There were several comments about how there isn't ENOUGH parking which I thought was strange because the goal here should be to reduce car use within this project and reduce the size of the parking garage/podium. That, in my opinion, is the real issue. Height and shadowing should be reduced, but I don't think there needs to be as dramatic a shift in that area as there does with the podium/parking.

You seem to think I'm making this into an us vs. them argument. In fact, there were several people in the crowd who had great suggestions, instead of just bitching about the proposal. Which, ultimately, will go a lot farther to influence the project. I can give credit where it's due. But for the people who showed up and gave no constructive criticism? Nada.
 
Last edited:
SP!RE said:
I stand by my feelings which is that although many constructive comments were made, most people only attacked the size of the proposal without any realistic suggestions for improvement. All I heard were complaints.

In addition to this, most complaints were about height and shadowing, both of which I have little sympathy for. This is Yonge Street. Over a subway line. The world does not revolve around people who live in neighbouring apartments (whose buildings were once tall for the area and considered inappropriately scaled). It's just uncreative to argue about shadowing... what is even so bad about shadowing? (That's my opinion, again.)

If people had focused their argument on REDUCING parking, and making the podium smaller by doing this, and focused on how to create a nice face for the neighbourhood at street level and in the design of the podium, then I'd give credit where it was due. But instead all I heard were complaints, negativity, and people mocking the architect for his efforts at covering up the parking garage. It's hard to take people seriously when they show up and simply complain about height and shadows (some of them were people living in highrise condos, ironically). There were several comments about how there isn't ENOUGH parking which I thought was strange because the goal here should be to reduce car use within this project and reduce the size of the parking garage/podium. That, in my opinion, is the real issue. Height and shadowing should be reduced, but I don't think there needs to be as dramatic a shift in that area as there does with the podium/parking.

You seem to think I'm making this into an us vs. them argument. In fact, there were several people in the crowd who had great suggestions, instead of just bitching about the proposal. Which, ultimately, will go a lot farther to influence the project. I can give credit where it's due. But for the people who showed up and gave no constructive criticism? Nada.
Click to expand...

You mustn't have had your listening ears on or we attended a different meeting.

Regardless, you take issue with critical commentary about a proposal that will have a fundamental impact on the community. I would just like to point out that critical commentary is an extremely valuable part of the proposal process. Identifying flaws, potential problem areas, issues of scale, questionably rosy projections, traffic concerns, worries about physical impact on surrounding buildings, etc. are all valid and constructive contributions to the debate, in spite of your characterization of them as "unconstructive" and mere "bitching", which, I must point out, is disrespectful and says more about your bias than it does about the people making the critiques.

Further, criticism does not need to be coupled with solution. Asserting that it does is just another way of squelching the expressions of concern by those pesky (self-)interested parties who trouble you so. Admittedly, it's nice when it happens, but the onus isn't necessarily on the community to offer solutions. And, if I remember correctly, even when suggestions are made, you take issue and dismiss them too. Seems to me like you want to narrow the debate to the point where it just addresses those matters of (self-)interest to you and you alone.

As for shadows and their impact on neighbourhoods, spend some time in the dark, canyons of Lower Manhattan and tell me again that shadowing isn't destructive and doesn't have an impact on those who experience it on a daily basis. Excessive shadowing fundamentally alters a community and your dismissive and condescending comment that concerns about shadowing are "uncreative" adds nothing to the debate and is yet another example of a sneeringly elitist attempt to marginalize the legitimate concerns of the individuals who will be most affected by the proposed development. While "the world may not revolve around them," the neighbourhood does.
 
Two different viewpoints, AlphaTO. And the irony is that you're making judgments about ME, while claiming I'm making judgments about the people at the meeting. I'm just going to let our different sets of priorities (with regards to this development) and viewpoints stand.
 
SP!RE said:
Two different viewpoints, AlphaTO. And the irony is that you're making judgments about ME, while claiming I'm making judgments about the people at the meeting. I'm just going to let our different sets of priorities (with regards to this development) and viewpoints stand.
Click to expand...

SP!RE, I was just making use of the language you've employed to malign a group of concerned citizens. From there I've parsed bias. In the end, the words are yours and not mine.
 
SP!RE:

The status quo is a legitimate outcome from a planning perspective - as untenable as the opponent's views maybe, it is no different from that of the proponent - i.e. based on self-interest.

Besides, if you think about it some more - if the intent is consensus, why put forth such an outrageous proposal that is significantly out of scale with the neighbourhood in the first place? A more reasonable proposal (say, like the Met - and the context for that project is far more forgiving than Yonge) offered from the start might have garnered less vitriol from at least some members of the community.

AoD
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top