TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The tennis court and field at LLPS desperately need upgrading. The field has no grass and the court is missing tennis nets and the concrete is falling apart.
Toronto Waverley | 57.09m | 15s | Fitzrovia | Kirkor
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
The tennis court and field at LLPS desperately need upgrading. The field has no grass and the court is missing tennis nets and the concrete is falling apart.
torplanner
Active Member
In the Star today (a bit late)
http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...away_from_opposing_developers_tower_plan.html
"TDSB takes $1M to back away from opposing developer's tower plan
The highrise next to Lord Lansdowne Public School will shade the schoolyard every morning, but the Toronto District School Board was trying to 'make the best of a very poor situation.'"
http://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto/...away_from_opposing_developers_tower_plan.html
"TDSB takes $1M to back away from opposing developer's tower plan
The highrise next to Lord Lansdowne Public School will shade the schoolyard every morning, but the Toronto District School Board was trying to 'make the best of a very poor situation.'"
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Or put it in trust for upkeeping the school? It's not exactly new - and it is architecturally worthwhile.
AoD
AoD
ksun
Senior Member
"and increase traffic in the streets where hundreds of children walk, critics claim"
Are they kidding? How many of those living at Spadina/College will drive to work? I am sure nobody drives near the schools in the suburbs.
I live in a downtown condo, and rarely see cars going in and out of the garage. Most folks simply don't drive their cars (if they have one) that much.
Shadow and ice is an issue, but it is an issue anywhere. If the shadow occurs "every morning", then how can it be "permanent"? It gives the illusion the playground will be under the shadow 24/7, when it is probably an hour or two.
Are they kidding? How many of those living at Spadina/College will drive to work? I am sure nobody drives near the schools in the suburbs.
I live in a downtown condo, and rarely see cars going in and out of the garage. Most folks simply don't drive their cars (if they have one) that much.
Shadow and ice is an issue, but it is an issue anywhere. If the shadow occurs "every morning", then how can it be "permanent"? It gives the illusion the playground will be under the shadow 24/7, when it is probably an hour or two.
greenleaf
Senior Member
http://www.joecressy.com/resolution_for_484_spadina_avenue_the_waverley_and_silver_dollar_room
-15 storey (52 metre) residential building, reduced from the original 22-storey (69 metre) proposal that was originally proposed
-Significantly decreased shadow impact on the school playground and school
-Heritage restoration of the Silver Dollar Room, including the maintenance of the existing location and the iconic “Silver Dollar Room” sign and location thereof
-Significant steps downs in height and step backs to emphasize the architecture of the Silver Dollar Room and the surrounding area
-15 storey (52 metre) residential building, reduced from the original 22-storey (69 metre) proposal that was originally proposed
-Significantly decreased shadow impact on the school playground and school
-Heritage restoration of the Silver Dollar Room, including the maintenance of the existing location and the iconic “Silver Dollar Room” sign and location thereof
-Significant steps downs in height and step backs to emphasize the architecture of the Silver Dollar Room and the surrounding area
Good news as far as I'm concerned. dataBase updated, thread title too.
42
42
torplanner
Active Member
Good compromise. Much more appropriate for the area.
k10ery
Senior Member
They waived Section 37 money? Is that as unusual as it sounds?
Kudos to Joe Cressy for giving up his blood money, if that was what was necessary to get this project downsized.
Preserving and restoring the Silver Dollar Room and sign is also going to cost, potentially a lot, depending on how they build around it…
so that would represent the community benefit contribution in this project, and why there are no further Section 37 funds being required.
42
so that would represent the community benefit contribution in this project, and why there are no further Section 37 funds being required.
42
arvelomcquaig
Active Member
“blood money”? What?
k10ery
Senior Member
Slush money. Hush money. To keep it simple: bribe money. Ask Cressy's predecessor how it works. Or any Latin American politician, I believe they've got the system perfected.
k10ery: It bugs the hell out of me when people accuse city councillors of taking bribes without any specifics and without presenting any evidence. If you have a case to lay out, go ahead and lay it out. If you don't, then don't dirty our website with what amounts to cowardly, empty slander.
42
42
k10ery
Senior Member
Forgive me for being jocular over an important issue. For the record I am not saying anyone took personal bribes. I am saying that Section 37 is a system where developers' money causes the councillor to remove objections to the proposal, and the councillor then uses the funds to buy votes elsewhere in the ward. I am not saying this violates the law. I am saying the law violates principles of good government.
Bloor101
New Member
What is the timeline from here? Approximately how much time before anything will actually begin?
That's not the core of Section 37 though. The core of it is that…
1) The City doesn't have the funds it needs to pay for community improvements.
2) Councillors have been too chicken to vote through more appropriate zoning since the current bylaws were essentially made obsolete by the province's Places to Grow Act in 2006.
3) Section 37 has worked as a way to get the improvements while allowing the higher densities that the Places To Grow Act requires.
If City Council was to update the zoning, they'd have to find a new way to fund park, library, community centre, streetscape, etc., improvements. I'm not saying that that would be a bad thing: developers would prefer to have a standard formula that benefits were based upon instead of having to negotiate with every building. Lawyers prefer the current situation.
But, um, 'bribes' is not a good way to put it.
42
1) The City doesn't have the funds it needs to pay for community improvements.
2) Councillors have been too chicken to vote through more appropriate zoning since the current bylaws were essentially made obsolete by the province's Places to Grow Act in 2006.
3) Section 37 has worked as a way to get the improvements while allowing the higher densities that the Places To Grow Act requires.
If City Council was to update the zoning, they'd have to find a new way to fund park, library, community centre, streetscape, etc., improvements. I'm not saying that that would be a bad thing: developers would prefer to have a standard formula that benefits were based upon instead of having to negotiate with every building. Lawyers prefer the current situation.
But, um, 'bribes' is not a good way to put it.
42