Toronto 629 King Residences (was Thompson Residences) | 53.34m | 15s | Freed | Saucier + Perrotte

[atodaso]

There are some instances of people playing nasty, but they're pretty isolated. Despite that you enjoy making lazy, blanket accusations that tar and feather the entire process. If you're going to impugn, please start being specific. Cite cases. Otherwise it will be considered trolling, and trolling is not allowed on UT.

42

42, I find your indignation disingenuous. Anyone reading these threads regularly can find ample discussion backed by ample evidence on this topic. It is a widespread concern in Toronto, and pretending it doesn't exist is false and misleading.
My statements are not lazy, uninformed, or otherwise lacking in substance, and they are not trolling. It's just impossible to cite every incident in every post. I believe it's essential that those reading and posting on this forum be educated about these facts and not be given a candy coated version of the truth. Toronto is in the midst of an unprecedented building boom, and to ignore the losses and casualties that result from an unbridled and aggressive building industry is irresponsible. There is a strong pro-development leaning in these pages, though it is a community resource used by all. You can take credit for building one of Toronto's most widely referenced resources on city building, but you also have a responsibility. The other side of the story of Toronto's building boom has to be known. If you attempt to muzzle it then this forum loses all credibility.

Within a few blocks of the Thompson I can name many recent instances, here are a few:

1/ Thompson Residences - Freed paid back the 'nimby's' with interest by drastically exceeding the official community plan and council recommendations not once, but twice, through the OMB, as a big f**k you to anyone attempting to stand in his way. As a result we will have a building wall that drastically exceeds the architect's (Saucier + Perrotte) original vision, planning precedents, the OCP, and the concerted efforts of the community at arriving at an acceptable result.

2/ 489 King Building (Flynn's of Temple Bar). Not 200 metres east is the Allied/&co proposal. The developer has sought to entirely demolish 489 King building, a significant example of King West's industrial heritage architecture. The preliminary proposal was met with strong and unanimous vocal opposition. They have come back with a proposal to facadectomize claiming, absurdly, that the building is "too old"/ What rot! If they don't get their way they will go to OMB and who knows what they will do.

3/ Plaza Corpse site, one block north of the Thompson, mid-block between Adelaide and King. Plaza Corpse succeeded in hastily demolishing an imposing and elegant six storey 1880's warehouse before anything could be done to prevent it (in 2012).

4/ Albany Club block: A proposal has been put forward to demolish a contiguous block of significant historic buildings. (active - keep an eye on this one) http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/29...any-club-wants-to-stay-put-condo-or-no-condo/

5/ The Empress Hotel - a double whammy of demolition by neglect followed by arson motivated by shameless unbridled greed. (this is my opinion, the arsonist has not been tied to the owners with irrefutable evidence)

6/ Walnut Hall, Toronto's last remaining complete row of 19th century Georgian townhouses was victim to demolition by neglect followed by absurd claims of bricks mysteriously flinging themselves onto the sidewalk: This staged incident was used to justify an emergency demolition permit, which was granted. No attempts were made at stabilization, just bulldozers. (Also my opinion, but I inspected this building shortly before the alleged bricks fell, as well as immediately prior to the demolition. From my experience the claims of bricks falling as claimed, given the state of the building, was extremely unlikely. The building had endured a winter and then on a calm spring day bricks suddenly dislodged themselves and propelled themselves 8 feet from the face of the building and onto the sidewalk) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walnut_Hall

7/ Designated Historic Schoolhouse demolished on Dufferin (very recent) http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...developer-bulldozes-historic-school-1.2508845

8/ Numerous ongoing attempts to demolish restaurant row.

9/ The Bohemian Embassy, (embarrassment) was forced through in spite intense and unanimous community opposition. In the end this project significantly altered the form and character of this portion of Queen West, for the worse.

.....

These are just a few incidents that I can recall off the top my head that have occurred in the last couple of years.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Only 2 of those are demolition by neglect, and the Empress wasn't done by a developer, no matter the sinister intents. Facedomies have been industry standard for decades, not a surprise really for 489 king and restaurant row. They are maintaining the facades and the restaurant uses, it's not really any worse than an extensive interior renovation which I'm sure most people wouldn't even notice.

 

[argus]

1/ Thompson Residences - Freed paid back the 'nimby's' with interest by drastically exceeding the official community plan and council recommendations not once, but twice, through the OMB, as a big f**k you to anyone attempting to stand in his way. As a result we will have a building wall that drastically exceeds the architect's (Saucier + Perrotte) original vision, planning precedents, the OCP, and the concerted efforts of the community at arriving at an acceptable result.

Actually, just so you know, the local residents opposed this proposal because it exceeded the guidelines found in the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. No one opposed development of the site. Freed was being asked to conform to those guidelines. So the characterization of those of us living in the area as being NIMBY's is inaccurate. The OMB has essentially destroyed the Secondary Plan, hence the reason why all following proposals have subsequently gone beyond it. When it comes to the OMB, it's planning by kangaroo court.

 

[interchange42]

42, I find your indignation disingenuous. Anyone reading these threads regularly can find ample discussion backed by ample evidence on this topic. It is a widespread concern in Toronto, and pretending it doesn't exist is false and misleading.
My statements are not lazy, uninformed, or otherwise lacking in substance, and they are not trolling. It's just impossible to cite every incident in every post. I believe it's essential that those reading and posting on this forum be educated about these facts and not be given a candy coated version of the truth. Toronto is in the midst of an unprecedented building boom, and to ignore the losses and casualties that result from an unbridled and aggressive building industry is irresponsible. There is a strong pro-development leaning in these pages, though it is a community resource used by all. You can take credit for building one of Toronto's most widely referenced resources on city building, but you also have a responsibility. The other side of the story of Toronto's building boom has to be known. If you attempt to muzzle it then this forum loses all credibility.

I am not trying to muzzle debate, I'm trying to rescue it from empty, impossible to discuss blanket statements. I'm not asking for an endless list of examples in every post, but without any examples when throwing around accusations you add nothing to the discussion.

The development industry is not unbridled here. That does not mean that it isn't motivated to get the most from the land it owns, so yes, it will continue to be aggressive. It usually does not get everything it wants from the process, just as the local opposition does not get everything it wants. Change can be painful for those who want things to stay the same, but this city will not be staying the same. The greenbelt and the Places to Grow Act mean that there will always be pressure here to intensify.

Certainly the City (and "local opposition") loses some battles. I agree about the problematic nature of some of what you list above, but others in your list are simply caught up in the process now and for which there is no outcome yet. The extra floors awarded for the Thompson Residences would be one of those representing a dismaying decision by the OMB, whereas the proposal at the Albany Club site is simply a proposal facing opposition at the City now.

1) I consider that a valid complaint regarding the OMB Decision. 2) In process. You're casting aspersions. 3) Plazacorp had the right to take the building down. 4) In process. Not an example of your accusations. 5) Appalling what happened here. Little chance now of charges, very unfortunate. No one in their right mind condones demolition through neglect or by arson. When either of those things happen one wants those responsible to be held accountable. 6) Ditto. 7) Slip-up in the system, was admitted to. 8) In process. Not an example of your accusations. 9) It may not be the best development in recent Toronto history, but it's not a disaster. You can have "intense and unanimous community opposition" to something, but that does not make it right. The land owner has rights, and the process determined what they had the right to do.

In the end you have a short list of exceptions, some of which are painful. Painting the whole industry and system through posts like

There are numerous recent instances of developers demolishing by neglect, using lawyers and the OMB to quash common sense and the best interests of the community, using arson to further their interests.... It all depends what you consider evil.

— still counts as a lazy, inflammatory, broad strokes charge, and mostly useless.

42

 

[modernizt]

atodaso, though you are going to face a disproportionate reaction against your comments if you critique developers around here (UT tends to be very biased towards developers and their actions), know that there are lots of people reading these threads who will agree with you and who also find our urban planning framework/process to fall short.

It irks me that people around here always speak in broad strokes, but the moment it's a (perfectly reasonable) comment like the one quoted by i42 above, it is pointed out as "lazy" and "inflammatory". Ridiculous. You can say whatever you want here, as long as it's not against the developers. Serious conflict-of-interest issues at UT. It concerns me when making broad-strokes comments about developers is referred to as trolling by a mod, but just about anything else flies.

Your critique is appreciated, atodaso. It's important to discuss the dark side of developers/the planning process. Even if one doesn't think developers are "bad/evil/greedy", etc., it's important to discuss why bad things happen. In any case of profit-driven industry, I think it comes down to local/government regulation.

I am not trying to muzzle debate, I'm trying to rescue it from empty, impossible to discuss blanket statements. I'm not asking for an endless list of examples in every post, but without any examples when throwing around accusations you add nothing to the discussion.

.
.
.

— still counts as a lazy, inflammatory, broad strokes charge, and mostly useless.

42

Ridiculous comments. You guys are not present to moderate half the time, but the moment someone goes after developers' actions, or even slightly generalizes them, you come out in full force.

 

[interchange42]

Modern, thanks for not understanding much of what I wrote. Time to re-read it, and time to learn a little more of what is expected around here.

You should know that you cannot say "whatever you want" on UT. You can say whatever you want within reason. UrbanToronto is a moderated forum, not a democracy. Bogging down threads with idle remarks that add nothing to the discussion is considered trolling. Specific complaints are encouraged. Broad generalizations are not. UT is a place for discussion, not simple whining. (Out of necessity, some threads like Mayor Rob Ford's Toronto get a little more leeway.)

Of course there are times when it can take a while for posts to be moderated, but it has nothing to do with whether it's anti-development or not. It has to do when there are eyes on the threads. None of we moderators, me included, will try to claim infallibility, but we do try to be fair, and we are trying to elevate the tone around here. If you're not willing to distinguish between valuable discussion and throw-away remarks, your time here will ultimately be limited.

Most readers don't want their time wasted with uninformative filler. Bring some intelligence to the posts and all is good.

42

 

[Parkdalian]

Uhh, you know that making baseless accusations is called slander and libel, right? So, as moderator of a forum that could get sued by developers for libelous comments that are allowed to stand on a site that he moderates, he's perfectly within his rights to point this out. Just as people who want to make baseless accusations can do them on their own blogs and risk libel there. Some people think that their emotions give them a right to say what they want; unfortunately, that is not the case.

I'm not a fan of developers, but I'm also not a fan of how little people - even on this site! - know about the process of development and how challenging it can be for everyone involved to get the best out of it. It would be helpful if people who didn't like the current system provided reasonable, effective and actionable recommendations rather than the whole "developers are eeeeeevil" sort of comments. For starters, people should be lobbying their councillors to raise taxes to pay for an expanded planning department. As well, they could consider donating to Heritage Toronto, and to lobby their MPPs to expand heritage protection.

 

[modernizt]

He did bring intelligence in his comments; you yourself agreed with him multiple times in your own rebuttal. Some of his comments could be seen as "unfair" generalizations, but that's a big part of online discussions, and people here make such comments all the time about various community groups, city councillors, architects, etc. I know what's expected around here, and I think what you said about his comments was uncalled for and unfair.

I won't hold the thread up any longer, but I disagree that his comments were "useless", and I will re-iterate that I (along with various people I've spoken to) feel that UT is very biased towards developers, and is involved in a pretty big conflict of interest with them. It used to be a grassroots/community discussion, and now it's an industry voice.

I will agree that developers are not evil. They are often insufferable and seek to make HUGE profit by inappropriate means (when a large profit could be made by following the appropriate routes to building more appropriate developments), but no, evil is a strong word. Also, our planning processes enable them to do wrong, and some would argue, encourage them to.

As for trying to argue that a board member is going to get UT sued by their remarks, that's ridiculous, and a big leap. UT has become a news outlet, and is an extreme benefit to the developers in Toronto. None would waste their time seeking damages from a community member's comments on a public discussion board.

 

[ProjectEnd]

atodaso, though you are going to face a disproportionate reaction against your comments if you critique developers around here (UT tends to be very biased towards developers and their actions), know that there are lots of people reading these threads who will agree with you and who also find our urban planning framework/process to fall short.

It irks me that people around here always speak in broad strokes, but the moment it's a (perfectly reasonable) comment like the one quoted by i42 above, it is pointed out as "lazy" and "inflammatory". Ridiculous. You can say whatever you want here, as long as it's not against the developers. Serious conflict-of-interest issues at UT. It concerns me when making broad-strokes comments about developers is referred to as trolling by a mod, but just about anything else flies.

Your critique is appreciated, atodaso. It's important to discuss the dark side of developers/the planning process. Even if one doesn't think developers are "bad/evil/greedy", etc., it's important to discuss why bad things happen. In any case of profit-driven industry, I think it comes down to local/government regulation.



Ridiculous comments. You guys are not present to moderate half the time, but the moment someone goes after developers' actions, or even slightly generalizes them, you come out in full force.

He did bring intelligence in his comments; you yourself agreed with him multiple times in your own rebuttal. Some of his comments could be seen as "unfair" generalizations, but that's a big part of online discussions, and people here make such comments all the time about various community groups, city councillors, architects, etc. I know what's expected around here, and I think what you said about his comments was uncalled for and unfair.

I won't hold the thread up any longer, but I disagree that his comments were "useless", and I will re-iterate that I (along with various people I've spoken to) feel that UT is very biased towards developers, and is involved in a pretty big conflict of interest with them. It used to be a grassroots/community discussion, and now it's an industry voice.

I will agree that developers are not evil. They are often insufferable and seek to make HUGE profit by inappropriate means (when a large profit could be made by following the appropriate routes to building more appropriate developments), but no, evil is a strong word. Also, our planning processes enable them to do wrong, and some would argue, encourage them to.

As for trying to argue that a board member is going to get UT sued by their remarks, that's ridiculous, and a big leap. UT has become a news outlet, and is an extreme benefit to the developers in Toronto. None would waste their time seeking damages from a community member's comments on a public discussion board.

You claim to know a lot about a forum you joined last month. Leaving aside that both you and atodaso would have been eaten alive in the UT of yore, his comments were both lazy and inflammatory and Interchange was perfectly within reason calling him out.

 

[modernizt]

I've spoken to the other administrator/moderator about switching to a new account. I don't post from my older one, as I used it since I was a teenager and felt that my comments about various architects from my more naive days did not stand the test of time and are not viewpoints I hold anymore. I'm in the industry now and didn't want to be linked to comments about various architecture firms that were not based in fact.

I'm not so much irritated that i42 called him out on his comments, so much as I am irritated that i42 doesn't often call forumers out unless they speak out against a developer. People make comments about local planners, city councillors, and architects ALL the time, and are never called out for it.

 

[atodaso]

Facedomies have been industry standard for decades,

Facadectomy has been normalized in Toronto where heritage standards are extremely weak and where bowing to development pressures is the norm. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to development, I'm not retrogressive, and I love modern architecture including tall buildings where appropriate, but Toronto has allowed the historic fabric of many of it's districts to be all but wiped clean. For the most part, preservation is token at best.

 

[NBGtect]

I think some people fail to realize that a private forum is not a democracy. As for UT being pro-development, of course it is! That's the whole point of reading the news articles and searching the databases. As for the "greater good" for the people of Toronto, one must realize that the development industry is a huge part of our economy, it produces well-paying jobs, and has a massive trickle down effect for many other industries. To claim that people on here don't know much about the process is also presumptuous.

Think about where you live right now. At some point in history someone was opposed to your place being built. Nothing stays the same here. We should be happy to live in a place that's growing and has a building boom.

Can you add to the system in a positive way? Of course you can! Get involved, be active. Community Consultations often bring about better developments. Whining on a forum does very little and it's difficult to take those members seriously.

ProjectEnd: The reason why many members like myself didn't contribute to this forum for years, is not because we had nothing to say or are clueless about the industry, it's because we didn't want to get "eaten alive" by members like you who frequently bullied and made dogmatic comments to stifle others. The UT Forums appear to be well managed and moderated very well nowadays and people with other voices maybe feel more confident to share their opinions without fear that the internet is a free-for-all absent from manners.

 

[atodaso]

Actually, just so you know, the local residents opposed this proposal because it exceeded the guidelines found in the King-Spadina Secondary Plan. No one opposed development of the site. Freed was being asked to conform to those guidelines. So the characterization of those of us living in the area as being NIMBY's is inaccurate. The OMB has essentially destroyed the Secondary Plan, hence the reason why all following proposals have subsequently gone beyond it. When it comes to the OMB, it's planning by kangaroo court.

I agree with you. I put nimbys in quotes because I find the label brings meaningful discussion to a grinding halt. The term not only negates but it mocks the reason for being of city building: the community which it is intended to serve.

I was excited that S + P had been engaged to redevelop the eyesore on King that was the travelodge. But early on I noticed that Freed was forcing the architect to compromise the design by limiting the push and pull of the facade boxes to maximize areas, then they pushed the envelope upwards and fought the community to the bitter end, and then did it again, to add insult to injury. If these statements are libel I'm prepared to stand before Freed and say it to his face.

 

[interchange42]

I'm not so much irritated that i42 called him out on his comments, so much as I am irritated that i42 doesn't often call forumers out unless they speak out against a developer. People make comments about local planners, city councillors, and architects ALL the time, and are never called out for it.

Why use the word 'never'? It's simply not the case. While individual planners are rarely named on UT, I defend the department whenever it's appropriate. In regards to City Councillors, check the Smart House thread for a recent example. I don't know where the comment re architects comes from at all. That's simply bizarre.

Regarding developers, Canderel is an example of one that advertises on UT who does not get a free ride from us. I'm clear about what I think of Aura in that thread, and if you check into the latest on the YC thread you'll see full disclosure on confusion regarding that project too.

Enough with the aspersions. Play fair.

42

 

[Ramako]

I won't hold the thread up any longer, but I disagree that his comments were "useless", and I will re-iterate that I (along with various people I've spoken to) feel that UT is very biased towards developers, and is involved in a pretty big conflict of interest with them. It used to be a grassroots/community discussion, and now it's an industry voice.

I don't think UT forums are any more pro-developer than they were when I joined almost 7 years ago - in fact probably less. The fact is that UT started out as a discussion forum for people who generally like development so naturally it had a pro-development bent from the very beginning. The notion that UT is a "grassroots/communal" forum for discussing all issues Toronto is a relatively recent one.

In fact, I would argue the opposite of your position; In the last couple of years I've seen more and more 'developers are the bad guy and UT is in bed with them posts' than I ever did years ago when UT was a small hobby forum that no one paid attention to.

I'm not so much irritated that i42 called him out on his comments, so much as I am irritated that i42 doesn't often call forumers out unless they speak out against a developer. People make comments about local planners, city councillors, and architects ALL the time, and are never called out for it.

Please! I'm a (recent) mod and I mercilessly tear into the likes of Pinnacle, Tridel, Concord, etc. as much as anyone, if not more.