Northern Light
Superstar
Councillor Matlow has a Member Motion concerning this proposal going to the next meeting of City Council on April 7th, 2021:
Toronto 2180 Yonge | 247m | 65s | Oxford Properties | Hariri Pontarini
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
allengeorge
Senior Member
I’ve very little faith that the above will improve the proposal in a material way. There are many problems with the proposal, and it seems like all the neighbours care about is reducing height and getting a school.
Northern Light
Superstar
The height isn't a problem, to me; though the arrangement of the site makes it a bit more of an issue than it otherwise would be.
But overall, I'm fine w/height and density and feel no need to entertain objections on those grounds.
The issue about the school is a fair one; kids in this area are being bused well outside their neighbourhood to go to school at young ages. That's a hassle, not just for the kids/parents, but the additional traffic/noise/pollution from the associated buses.
It's an entirely fair ask to get a school.
******
That said, the complete re-arrangement of the proposed is entirely necessary.
But I don't necessarily expect the typical area resident to understand why; not everyone has a strong knowledge of, or interest in urban design, planning and architecture.
The absence of a school or large shadows are easy to understand.
Why a cul-de-sac is an anti-urban form; or this layout will result in sub-optimal public space; or a less than desirable public realm on Yonge is a bit less obvious............
Apparently even to Design Review Panel members......... sigh!
WislaHD
Superstar
@Northern Light I think the problem is that the city councilor is advocating for things besides a rethinking of the design/re-arrangement of the master plan.
If the DRP isn't going to make comment, then I don't know who is going to tell Oxford to do away with the cul-de-sac.
If the DRP isn't going to make comment, then I don't know who is going to tell Oxford to do away with the cul-de-sac.
Northern Light
Superstar
You are!
As am I.
And a host of other UT'ers.
Whether we get anywhere..............(but let's be optimistic)
To quote "The Great One" ........."You miss 100% of the shots you don't take."
ChesterCopperpot
Senior Member
I believe that's a Michael Scott quote
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Yeah i see where you're coming from, but since when .are developers building a project in in the business of building public schools??
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Light
Superstar
North Toronto Collegiate, just up the street, in conjunction with Republic Condos.
North Toronto Collegiate Institute / Republic Condominiums | Adjeleian Allen Rubeli Limited
The North Toronto Collegiate Institute (NTCI) Redevelopment is a one of a kind development consisting of a replacement school facility which was integrated with a new residential development, the Republic Condominiums. Read more
aar.ca
There are other precedents too.
Not including the myriad schools/sites for schools supplied when new subdivisions go up.
PS., this is Publicly-owned land, not developer owned.
Lachlan Holmes
Active Member
HousingNowTO
Senior Member
Today, Councillor Cole (and Robinson) tried to turn Canada Square into a "broader" working group for the Yonge & Eglinton area...
...and the whole thing turned into a shouting-fest between Councillors Matlow and Robinson where lots of mid-town "Dirty Laundry" was hung-out on the line...
...and the whole thing turned into a shouting-fest between Councillors Matlow and Robinson where lots of mid-town "Dirty Laundry" was hung-out on the line...
Amare
Senior Member
^Ah the clown show that is Toronto City Council.
When can we add another ~20 or so members again? I kind of miss those days
When can we add another ~20 or so members again? I kind of miss those days
Northern Light
Superstar
SMH, the problem at C-Square is not height or density, it's form, and layout.
Either way, not brilliant optics
ProjectEnd
Superstar
"I LOWERED THE HEIGHT OF THOSE BUILDINGS!"
Ugh.
Ugh.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
ugh.
Matlow does have a point though - Robinson's last minute political push to cut the heights in Midtown in Focus to stupidly short ones was a big reason that the MMAH overruled the plan and instituted their own.
The plan would never have flown in the inevitable LPAT appeals anyway, and Matlow probably knows that.
Council has actually been generally a lot less clowny this term with less councillors, I will say that. There's a few bad actors still (Holyday primarily), but they are generally a much more functional council than before. Certainly far, far from the worst in the GTA (Looking at you, Richmond Hill).
Matlow does have a point though - Robinson's last minute political push to cut the heights in Midtown in Focus to stupidly short ones was a big reason that the MMAH overruled the plan and instituted their own.
The plan would never have flown in the inevitable LPAT appeals anyway, and Matlow probably knows that.
Council has actually been generally a lot less clowny this term with less councillors, I will say that. There's a few bad actors still (Holyday primarily), but they are generally a much more functional council than before. Certainly far, far from the worst in the GTA (Looking at you, Richmond Hill).
afransen
Senior Member
There you go! Livable!
It's so lazy to focus on the heights of the buildings when trying to make development livable. It's what happens at ground level that is most important!