Toronto Waverley | 57.09m | 15s | Fitzrovia | Kirkor

k10ery said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes you did. Explicitly.

k10ery said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Section 37 mitigates the putatively-harmful features of a development by financing helpful features for the community. It's very simple, completely legitimate, and wonderful.
 
arvelomcquaig said:
Section 37 mitigates the putatively-harmful features of a development by financing helpful features for the community.
Click to expand...

Smaller words: it greases the wheels. But whether the resulting quid pro quos are a good deal for me the resident, of course I have no idea. That they are good for councillors' reelection strategies, that we may be sure.
 
ProjectEnd said:
Yes you did. Explicitly.
Click to expand...

I know you're smarter than that. Read what I wrote in both posts, recognize I did not, and then accept my apology for offending your sensibilities. But I stand by the substance of what I wrote.
 
interchange42 said:
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
Click to expand...

I think we are in agreement about the substance of things. I'm sorry I used a hot button word. And yet the system you describe is in my view corrupt. Not all corruption leads to personal financial enrichment of specific people - indeed in Canada that is one of the rarest kinds, I think.

To expand on what you wrote: the city could have updated zoning and increased development charges all at once. But with the highly non-transparent Sec 37 system in place to do essentially the same thing, councillors had little incentive to regularize things.
 
Failing reform, I want to see Section 37 funds be trackable. Same with park In-Lieu funds. I should be able to go on the City's website, see what the developer paid in those two areas, see what the funds have been allocated to, and when they are actually spent.

In terms of vote getting by the Councillors, well, anyone that you elect is put in place to improve the community. I'm not bothered that a Councillor might try to improve their community and advance their reelection that way. If they ignore one part of the community, they'll eventually pay for it at those polls. It's theirs to put to best use in consultation with the community, and if the voters are not happy with the outcome, den dey can trow da bum out.

42
 
They definitely should be trackable, not just for accountability purposes but also to ensure that council, developers, and the public are all making the best use of s37 money to improve the community. Money received from development charges is already tracked pretty strictly and will likely get even stricter with upcoming reforms to the DC act. If DCs have to be monitored, there is no reason why s37/ cash in lieu money shouldn't be
 
urbandreamer said:
I once stayed at the Waverly--they used to have crazy parties at the CZ so I crashed there one night. Yuck. Hope Kirkor blows my mind with some amazing Acid Trip'n architecture.
Click to expand...

Oh, the hours I've logged at the zone! Lol

When Guv closed, CZ became the longest running club in Canada from what I can tell. Ironic that it will meet the same fate shortly after.
 
New renderings. It's nice that they're preserving the Silver Dollar Room.
upload_2016-11-4_11-22-34.png


upload_2016-11-4_11-23-12.png


upload_2016-11-4_11-24-20.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2016-11-4_11-22-34.png
    upload_2016-11-4_11-22-34.png
    914.2 KB · Views: 1,054
  • upload_2016-11-4_11-23-12.png
    upload_2016-11-4_11-23-12.png
    611.6 KB · Views: 1,066
  • upload_2016-11-4_11-24-20.png
    upload_2016-11-4_11-24-20.png
    336.2 KB · Views: 1,081
Goodbye Comfort Zone then, in a way I'm sad to see it go. Cities need places like that, even if you or I aren't the one's who use them.
 
The massing is rather awkward, and I don't understand why the tower hangs over Silver Dollar. It would look better centered above the glass section of the podium.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top