U of T: Centre for Civilizations, Cultures, and Cities | 42.75m | 9s | U of T | DS + R

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
5,329
Reaction score
14,665
I can't support an MZO here because some of the local opposition to the project is irksome. That's insufficient cause for a very heavy-handed power.

I certainly take the point about there being value in having a more clearly prescribed set of circumstances guiding the use of MZOs, but I think this is where we differ in this particular case: "local opposition to a project" should not, in my opinion, be sufficient grounds on which to object to the use of an MZO, because it gives too much credit to the motives of the local opposition.

I have a pretty good private understanding of how the "local opposition" came to be in this case, and the answer is that a literal handful of wealthy and connected neighbours just don't like the design, and more or less every argument that has been made by the cadre of RAs they have assembled/co-opted to advance their cause is a disingenuous attempt at veiling their own personal distaste for the design. This is simply not how community consultation or city planning should work, because it's too subjective, too insubstantive, and places too much power in the hands of a few grumpy neighbours.

I know, too, for what it's worth, that there is a goodly number of residents who are ostensibly represented by the aforementioned RAs who are rightly pissed off that so much time and energy is being spent on the personal crusade of the ring leaders (especially given the litany of neighbourhood issues that actually affect quality of life to which the RAs could and should be dedicating their resources).
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
12,716
Reaction score
21,885
Location
Toronto/EY
I certainly take the point about there being value in having a more clearly prescribed set of circumstances guiding the use of MZOs, but I think this is where we differ in this particular case: "local opposition to a project" should not, in my opinion, be sufficient grounds on which to object to the use of an MZO, because it gives too much credit to the motives of the local opposition.

I have a pretty good private understanding of how the "local opposition" came to be in this case, and the answer is that a literal handful of wealthy and connected neighbours just don't like the design, and more or less every argument that has been made by the cadre of RAs they have assembled/co-opted to advance their cause is a disingenuous attempt at veiling their own personal distaste for the design. This is simply not how community consultation or city planning should work, because it's too subjective, too insubstantive, and places too much power in the hands of a few grumpy neighbours.

I know, too, for what it's worth, that there is a goodly number of residents who are ostensibly represented by the aforementioned RAs who are rightly pissed off that so much time and energy is being spent on the personal crusade of the ring leaders (especially given the litany of neighbourhood issues that actually affect quality of life to which the RAs could and should be dedicating their resources).

I'm fine w/that summation of facts; but there is an avenue of appeal here in the form of LPAT.

Lots of projects face opposition of this type, and sometimes, it's hard to separate the good from the bad, MZOs barring broad consent, should be a tool of last resort.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
5,329
Reaction score
14,665
I'm fine w/that summation of facts; but there is an avenue of appeal here in the form of LPAT.

Lots of projects face opposition of this type, and sometimes, it's hard to separate the good from the bad, MZOs barring broad consent, should be a tool of last resort.

Yeah, I definitely see that perspective. I think where I come down on this one is that the extant form of appeal (LPAT) is a lengthy and (in this case) unnecessary process whose conclusion we have a very good sense of, meaning the delay it would impose would be entirely avoidable (which is unfortunate given that the university really does need this space), to the detriment of the future students and faculty who will use this building.
 

AlbertC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
14,285
Reaction score
28,364
Location
Davenport

CursedWaffles

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 31, 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
6
I'm of the view that removing the existing faculty of Music building would probably be the way to go.

Yea, as I posted in this thread earlier the Edward Johnson Building needs a ton of work if it's going to continue to exist as the Faculty of Music's main space. If they're going to demolish or undertake a serious renovation of it, the time is before a huge new building is plunked in front of it, not before imo.
 

Johnny Au

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
7,638
Reaction score
3,621
Location
Near the North York, York, & Old Toronto tripoint
It would be great if the University of Toronto could sell the naming rights for the Centre for Civilizations, Cultures, and Cities to video game creator Sid Meier. Why? First, he's Canadian (he was born in Sarnia), and second, it would be called Sid Meier's Civilization Centre, just like the popular video game series he created.
 

Top