Toronto The One | 308.6m | 85s | Tridel | Foster + Partners

zang said:
Especially when the mayor would be there. While a politician, I don't think she plays the game as much as others.

As someone who lives in the area, I haven't heard a whole lot of excitement about the building; it's just another condo to most. Outside of real estate agents and architecture/urbanism wonks like us, it's generally not something most people get excited about. Truthfully, the vast majority of ward 27 has seen rents skyrocket and affordable housing and retail vaporize over the last decade. Even if it was only a handful of store-top, century apartments lost at that corner, this is a huge gilded symbol of wealth forcing affordability away.

The small businesses and George Brown, UofT and Ryerson students aren't throwing parties over it for sure. Okay, maybe some of the Ryerson students, but you get my drift.
Click to expand...

Forgive me, but she is elected to represent all constituents in her riding and is as well, by virtue of our system granted a say in matters concerning all of the 416. And vice versa with other Council members having a say as to what happens in her riding, whether she likes it or not. Everyone's view is equal. Some call it Democracy.

What she hasn't got is the licence to support only those developers do what she commands, nor does she have the right to pack up her toys and leave the sandbox when the majority of council and the people reporting to Council have approved this massive investment in Toronto's future. Sure, she can pout in private, but as a public figure her absence that day spoke to a lack of maturity and weakness in character.

Someone do the math on taxes that will be generated by this development, plus the annual flow of real estate taxes into City coffers, plus Land Transfer Taxes paid. That's what builds cities. Money. The hard question needed to be asked is what's happening with all that money.
 
I think it’s fair to comment on her lack of presence at the groundbreaking.
Slandering not cool, but as a politician her actions at official public events etc are going to be interpreted and discussed by the public.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Not really - politicians pick and choose what they show up for all the time based on among other things, their personal support or otherwise.

AoD
Click to expand...

Along with, like the rest of humanity, other regularly scheduled events.

I have no idea what KWT was up to that morning but if, say, she was meeting with a group of poverty eradication experts discussing ways to ensure fewer homeless people die on Toronto streets this winter, I'd frankly rather her take that meeting than glad-hand at a groundbreaking.
 
We now bring you live footage of the poor, downtrodden developer losing sleep over the grievous insult inflicted upon them by the mean ol' councillor.

huell.gif
 

Attachments

  • huell.gif
    huell.gif
    962.6 KB · Views: 505
ADRM said:
Along with, like the rest of humanity, other regularly scheduled events.

I have no idea what KWT was up to that morning but if, say, she was meeting with a group of poverty eradication experts discussing ways to ensure fewer homeless people die on Toronto streets this winter, I'd frankly rather her take that meeting than glad-hand at a groundbreaking.
Click to expand...

I am agnostic of her absence at the groundbreaking, but to call it "insulting to the community" when one pulled a very minor Bonwit Teller kind of spoiled that argument.

AoD
 
I believe her absence was designed to convey a message to the developer. She has had an axe to grind on this project from the beginning - likely having to do with the demolition of Stollerys. Personally, I just don't care. Her absence is neither important or interesting.
 
To your point, you have no idea what she was up to. No one does. That's not acceptable. She owes everyone an explanation for her visible absence at the ground breaking ceremony for the City's largest high-rise residential real estate investment. And to my point, money that will be paid in taxes directly and indirectly as a result of the massive tower of new homes could as an example contribute greatly toward solutions for the multiplicity of causes and effects of homelessness, which I might point out is getting worse, not better. There's the rub. The City is booming and yet we can't afford to do better for those that have nothing? Claw Sec. 7 money out of the hands of all Councillors and use that money for the betterment of all, and not self-aggrandizing, vote currying personal pet projects.
 
Big Daddy said:
She has had an axe to grind on this project from the beginning
Click to expand...

I hate that KWT's issues with the project (which, whether I agreed with them or not, always seemed based on the substance) and with the demolition (KWT was hardly the only one at the City or in the development community which had concerns with how it went down) are always distilled down to her having axes to grind, grudges, etc.
 
Christopher Brown said:
To your point, you have no idea what she was up to. No one does.
Click to expand...

Yes we do - I literally posted what she was doing at the time of the groundbreaking 2 posts above yours.
 
Christopher Brown said:
To your point, you have no idea what she was up to. No one does. That's not acceptable. She owes everyone an explanation for her visible absence at the ground breaking ceremony for the City's largest high-rise residential real estate investment. And to my point, money that will be paid in taxes directly and indirectly as a result of the massive tower of new homes could as an example contribute greatly toward solutions for the multiplicity of causes and effects of homelessness, which I might point out is getting worse, not better. There's the rub. The City is booming and yet we can't afford to do better for those that have nothing? Claw Sec. 7 money out of the hands of all Councillors and use that money for the betterment of all, and not self-aggrandizing, vote currying personal pet projects.
Click to expand...

Not that I am against this project at all, but there is a certain irony to talk as if this uber-luxe project will resolve the homeless issue. Perhaps the city should have demanded that x% of the units be set aside for affordable housing like in NYC, hmm (or on that matter, Aquabella at East Bayfront, or what's being proposed for 1 Yonge)?

BTW, s. 37 monies are used for public projects that are for the betterment of all.

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

Back
Top