jmi22
Active Member
No matter the height a building is proposed at this guy will always demand a few stories off. It's more of a habit it seems than any serious policy opinion.
Toronto 1802 Bayview | 156.6m | 46s | Gairloch | a—A
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
Kenojuak
Active Member
Wow, that's a lot of moolah. They're really gonna go for an appeal here.Yeah, the Bayview Broadway Good Planning Inc. folks can hold another quarter-of-a-million-dollar fundraising campaign... like they did for a neighbouring development site.
bbgpi.com - bbgpi Resources and Information.
bbgpi.com is your first and best source for all of the information you’re looking for. From general topics to more of what you would expect to find here, bbgpi.com has it all. We hope you find what you are searching for!www.bbgpi.com
View attachment 502057
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Their $250,000 fundraiser was for a different neighbouring site - but lots of Bayview & Leaside folks seem to have “money to burn” on slogging-out dumb appeals at the OLT. It’s pretty common in various pockets of North York Community Council district.
Amare
Senior Member
Incorrect.
I've called for higher density across numerous sites across the city, but nice try.
artyboy123
Senior Member
1802 Bayview Avenue  | 23 163199 NNY 15 OZ | Angela Zhao | 2023-10-17 | Register | 6 p.m. – 8 p.m. |
Midtown Hank
Active Member
For those that think the local resident's (associations) are foolish to raise $ to protect their interests and neighbourhoods (because that is what they are doing), I completely disagree. There seems to be an insinuation here that raising $ is analogous to appeal. That's not true. If folks raise enough $, they are able to hire competent planners & legal council. Without the $, the developer will ignore them. With the $, they have bargaining power and professional advice, which provides them a much better understanding of what's possible and what their options are.
Northern Light
Superstar
I do think this is an important point. Not all advocacy work for one's community is anti-development or classist; or resistance to change for its own sake.
Some of the former surely is those things, some of the time, but generalizations never serve anyone well.
I am a renter, I am part of a tenants association, said association certainly doesn't have 250k lying around, but we do have several thousand dollars so that we can hire a lawyer or paralegal as required for fighting an Above Guideline increase, an illegal fee, or for compelling reasonable service and property investment.
Residents associations may also make investments in the community as apart for any legal action, our association pays speakers fees for certain events that free to community members (example renters rights); and for refreshments at community events such as litter clean-ups. Which do add up when you have a few dozen people pop-by.
None of the above takes away from the fact that well heeled RAs/CAs may allocate some of their funds to fighting developments, sometimes in ways and for reasons that most here, including myself may find suspect if not outright wrong.
But again, one wants to look at each situation on its merits.
jmi22
Active Member
I don't disagree that over generalizations are harmful, but trends do exist and often are applicable. The vast majority of residents associations/ neighbourhood associations were founded in the second half of the 20th century to stop the construction of apartments. The dominance of the yellow belt for the last 40ish years can be attributed to them, as well as the chronic housing shortage. I really don't think these people, specifically around Bayview, are concerned with improvement of the area and I've yet to see evidence in support of that. Where was all this money and support to lobby for safer streets or more social housing projects? Suddenly they care about the neighbourhood when a building is proposed? I don't buy it.
Northern Light
Superstar
I think this overreaches, there was no housing shortage in the 90s and most of these associations existed. What changed was government promotion of demand.
I do agree that many/most RAs have supported/defended the yellowbelt.
Part of that is on unreasonable/classist biases (ie. against renters); but part also falls on governments here that have chosen not to impose controls on architectural quality, and on a community of developers and architects with a habit of building far too much trash, not just visually, but in terms of everything from unit sizes, to transportation demand management to viable retail or lack thereof etc etc.
This does do everything to foster more exuberant opposition when people are more cynical and suspicious.
I wouldn't oversell the above; but neither would I underplay it.
It all comes together.
There have been RAs that have advocated for affordable housing in proposals; sometimes sincerely, sometimes as a way of killing them.
On Vision Zero type stuff, there are actually lots of examples of RAs engaged in that, some even hiring they're own consultants to do the work.
Leasiders lobbied hard for the Vision Zero improvements set to go forward in that area.
Last edited:
Undead
Senior Member
Low rise housing is held in such high esteem here because of our European legacy. People moving here after the war didn't want to live in dingy and dense rowhouses and apartments like they did in the old world. The 60s tower in the park apartments were also part of this trend. It's important to know the context before blindly criticizing something you may not understand. And it's certainly ironic we're going back to dingy and dense in some ways.
Louder for those who still don't get it.
jmi22
Active Member
Huh? I know all about the European immigrants desire to flee the collapsing tenements of the old world. Does four European grandparents lamenting on the crisis of the the cities they left my whole childhood give me permission to talk about a bunch of WASP millionaires trying to prevent housing the city (including me) desperately needs? Maybe step off your soapbox
Northern Light
Superstar
A) You're on a soap box. Perhaps @Undead is too, in that he's advocating in his post for a point of view.
That said, I don't see it as productive posting to just tell another poster not to speak because you don't like what they have to say. The problem with that, I hope, is obvious.
B) Undead is not saying he is unsympathetic to anyone's need for housing, nor is he advocating for ranch-style bungalows on deep lots everywhere (for that matter, I don't think he actually advocated for even one).
Rather, what he's saying is that nimby'ism is simply not the primary cause of the housing crisis, and on that point he is 100% sound, period, full-stop. The crisis originates with demand spiking, not supply contracting. That was a policy choice of the state.
That does not mean that we should accept the 'yellowbelt' as status quo. No one is advocating for that; please don't suggest otherwise.
C) Finally, are you aware that WASP means white Anglo-saxon, protestant? Because if you are, you should know that does not describe the majority of homeowners in Toronto.
It's worth saying that those in 'core housing need' as defined by Stats. Can aren't far different between differing groups taken at a high level.
The overall need in Toronto is 16% of the population; the need for racialized groups in Toronto is actually lower at 14.2%
****
Perhaps we could now get back to what this thread is about, which is 1802 Bayview.
christiesplits
Senior Member
I attended the Q+A (the latter half) of the planning presentation last night. Thank you @Art Tsai for the reminder.
There was heavy representation from members of the local Broadway Area Residents Association (BARA). Concerns ranged from "fair," like concerns over parking and deliveries, to dubious, of which there were too many to name. I particularly dislike when community members request that only residents of the immediate community are allowed to ask questions and comment.
I'd be fine with 10 stories dropped from the final design, but based on the reception at the meeting, any building higher than 9 stories will be considered blasphemous by BARA.
*edited for clarity
There was heavy representation from members of the local Broadway Area Residents Association (BARA). Concerns ranged from "fair," like concerns over parking and deliveries, to dubious, of which there were too many to name. I particularly dislike when community members request that only residents of the immediate community are allowed to ask questions and comment.
I'd be fine with 10 stories dropped from the final design, but based on the reception at the meeting, any building higher than 9 stories will be considered blasphemous by BARA.
*edited for clarity
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
This one is the subject of an Appeals Report to the next meeting of NYCC.
The City is in opposition here because:
May disrupt the helicopter flight path to Sunnybrook. (applicant has not proven it does not, City awaiting word from Sunnybrook)
Too tall (City would like a max 35 storeys or really prefer a midrise here)
Inadequate stepbacks and setbacks
Unsafe wind conditions at ground level
Insufficient quality of public realm/streetscape
Also appear to be some servicing issues as well. (Water/Sewer related)
The City is in opposition here because:
May disrupt the helicopter flight path to Sunnybrook. (applicant has not proven it does not, City awaiting word from Sunnybrook)
Too tall (City would like a max 35 storeys or really prefer a midrise here)
Inadequate stepbacks and setbacks
Unsafe wind conditions at ground level
Insufficient quality of public realm/streetscape
Also appear to be some servicing issues as well. (Water/Sewer related)
Tim1234
Active Member
Really prefer a midrise. Ha.