Toronto 15 Hollis | 156.05m | 48s | Gairloch | a—A

A Torontonian Now said:
I have a bit of a problem squaring the circle on the City's position. On the one hand, we want 45 storey buildings here. Yet, when a proponent actually proposes one, we disagree with how they are going about it.
Click to expand...

In fairness, as a principle, that is Planning's job. To consider whether the building meets multiple different goals and guidelines from separation distances to shadowing. Now, whether they have it right in this case is a different matter.

A Torontonian Now said:
The lots on streets like this are not going to accommodate the point-tower over large podium type development that the City prefers. In terms of separation distances from other future towers, there are no other towers presently in the vicinity, so to me, as the first mover, this application may as well get an advantage and be permitted, with neighbouring applications, if they come, being scrutinized for separation distance.
Click to expand...

So here, we essentially agree, because here's what I did......

I looked at all 4 sides of the building.

East: Faces railway corridor, no room for any buildings

North: Faces Hollis, separation distances does not apply.

South: Faces Mt. Dennis Station, no tower has been contemplated or proposed here so far as know, the Block Context Plan shows none.

West: 2 narrow SFH house forms, followed by a proposed park and pedestrian access to Mt. Dennis Station.
No viable development potential.

Separation from what, exactly?

Block Context Plan:

1673452289749.png


1673452322890.png


****

On the neighbourhood form idea raised above......ie soft landscape (front yards); there is virtually no chance of any of those SFH house forms surviving here.

The Block context plan shows those on the north side of the street likely to go in favour of a new tower, I concur.

The only two they imagine staying are the stranded two on the south side of Hollis, which I think will be acquired as parkland. Regardless, 2 houses do not create or sustain a neigbhourhood character.

Stranded SFH:

1673452362781.png


Land to the west is Mx - owned.

****

I find the objections odd here.
 
Maybe they're saying the building proposed is just too ugly to build there (a sentiment I agree with)...and they're going about it in a convoluted way as that's their only legal option to object it on grounds of taste. >.<
 
Msleylar said:
Beyond accurate. There's little point these days to engaging, wait out the clock and appeal, then make a Settlement Offer. Pathetic that this is what it has come to with Staff, but it's gotten way out of hand.
Click to expand...

Obviously I'm preaching to the choir, but for those who haven't directly experienced it, on many occasions, Staff will now privately thank proponents for appealing a project.

It's totally nuts and in dire need of drastic reform (much greater than anything the Province has done with any of its housing bills, and probably further than Staff will let Tory go with his plan).
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
I'm not sure what you mean by this...but that does sound like a conflict of interests issue to me.
Click to expand...

As in "off the record, thank you for appealing this; we actually think it's good planning but are worried that it would set a new precedent and/or piss off one or both of the residents or local councillor, so this takes the pressure off of us."

As I said, in dire need of reform.
 
ADRM said:
Obviously I'm preaching to the choir, but for those who haven't directly experienced it, on many occasions, Staff will now privately thank proponents for appealing a project.

It's totally nuts and in dire need of drastic reform (much greater than anything the Province has done with any of its housing bills, and probably further than Staff will let Tory go with his plan).
Click to expand...

Admittedly I felt a bit bad after writing my comment, as I was reading a particularly set of inane UD comments at the time and shaking my head. Unfortunately this is the reality right now, there is simply little benefit to meaningful engagement with Staff or the process.

And you are right, one of my recent appeals was basically because Staff didn't have capacity to deal with it in any sort of reasonable timeframe, and when we did have discussions (prior to appeal), the Planners were unprepared, and had not reviewed the materials, and were not able to make a decision or take a position without talking with their Manager. What is the point to meetings like that? You basically need an Appeal to set an outside date for decisions and to light the proverbial fire under asses.

IMO, the City will continue to bleed experienced Staff (which they are no doubt experiencing) until someone is able to right the ship. Right now it is hopelessly off course and astray.
 
ADRM said:
As in "off the record, thank you for appealing this; we actually think it's good planning but are worried that it would set a new precedent and/or piss off one or both of the residents or local councillor, so this takes the pressure off of us."

As I said, in dire need of reform.
Click to expand...

Yup, I've been on the receiving end of similar comments, and they're becoming more frequent.
 
ADRM said:
As in "off the record, thank you for appealing this; we actually think it's good planning but are worried that it would set a new precedent and/or piss off one or both of the residents or local councillor, so this takes the pressure off of us."

As I said, in dire need of reform.
Click to expand...
Fair enough!
 
Good for Gairloch. Hopefully they bring the same type of attention to detail to this tower as they do for their mid-rise buildings.
 
Other than horrible parking lots, it's very satisfying to see whole blocks of unremarkable detached homes boarded up awaiting demolition for densification...
 
I'm curious how many detached homes are being replaced by more density across the GTA each year? It must be a pretty substantial number.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top