smuncky
Senior Member
from some of the neighbors
Toronto Bellwoods House | 45.5m | 13s | Republic | Arcadis
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
smably
Senior Member
We must preserve the character of (checks notes) our neighbourhood's historic auto repair shops!
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...I guess they'll have to incorporate that into the proposed building somehow. But since Mr. Towered was looking for more retail here, how about one that can fix cars. Non? 
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Nothing's impossible...
Towered
Senior Member
That's a big, fat "NO!" from me!...I guess they'll have to incorporate that into the proposed building somehow. But since Mr. Towered was looking for more retail here, how about one that can fix cars. Non?
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
HMMMMMM maybe I'll go to this - sounds entertaining
But really though, what are these people smoking?
urbanexplorer
Active Member
I don't personally have a horse in this race but it feels like these types of comments lack a real sense of understanding and empathy for neighbourhood residents IMO. While there is certainly such thing as unreasonable NIMBY-ism, so too is there unreasonable glossing over of valid concerns. The letter posted above doesn't read too outlandish to me - asking about sunlight studies, traffic and critical infrastructure is well within reason. When it comes to height, would a well designed building at 6 stories be so bad? I don't think so, it would probably help maintain the character of the area, even if it's unlikely to materialize.
I think this type of making fun of people only serves to make it harder to have constructive conversations.
DavidCapizzano
Senior Member
You're right - I do not empathize with these people and their concerns. As far as I am concerned, they're being selfish, and if their feelings are hurt by this, they'll just need to learn to deal with that. Why should I play nice with wealthy homeowners when stuff like this makes it infinitely harder for people like me, and countless others to find decent places to live in this city?
If they want a permanent low rise neighbourhood with historic character that is unlikely to be redeveloped at this scale, Kingston, Hamilton, Guelph, London and St Catharines are all waiting for them - I'm sure the value of their homes would more than cover the purchase price of a home in any of these cities.
They're using concerns about infrastructure and traffic as a guise for keeping their centrally located, well served by transit neighbourhood in Canada's biggest city exclusive to them. They're acting like victims when they hold literally all of the cards, and frankly I don't feel like it's up to me - a renter in a crummy old apartment - to empathize with these people's delusional victorian fantasy of urban living in 2023 Toronto.
Thx!
smably
Senior Member
We're talking about a 13-storey building within walking distance of the core of Canada's largest city. I'm sorry, but I have zero empathy for someone who lives downtown and can't deal with a 13-storey building on their street.
Dr. Snoot
Active Member
The letter seems reasonable, but I think it betrays itself.
"We are missing the following information, but the information that we don't have is conclusive: over six storeys is bad bad bad."
"We are missing the following information, but the information that we don't have is conclusive: over six storeys is bad bad bad."
Northern Light
Superstar
I'm going to side more with @urbanexplorer here.
I'm essentially in favour of this proposal, more or less at its current height.
To me, the issue here is not being for/against the proposal, it's not reading ill-will and hatred into the motivations of people you've never met; and taking an antagonistic view that will invariably derail more housing, and delay this project. If one wants to advocate for change, you don't start by poking your finger in someone else's eye, calling them names and then saying 'but why don't you support by view?'
I think the objections raised here are poorly conceived for this particular project.
Not simply because I think Republic has put forward a good effort and listened to concerns in good faith; but also because the site is currently a parking lot and an autobody shop.
The parking lot almost certainly spins more traffic than the new building will (I haven't read the applicable study, but parking churn rates in residential, especially in this type of location are much lower than a commercial parking lot would typically see.
That said, I don't see people representing their self-interest as evil; and if I did, I don't think saying such a thing would result in fruitful dialogue.
I also like many of these areas and don't see any problem with preserving the interiors of them from over-development that would indeed be bad for the environment and aesthetics.
But this is not an interior site; there are no SFH on it, this isn't removing high quality mature trees, so I think this proposal make good sense here.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Fair enough.
Yeah, if I called you selfish for whatever reason; would you think it was a compliment? It's an assertion of bad character. I think it's insulting. That's not to say there isn't self-interest (or imagined self-interest) at play; but how one expresses that is different from being aware of it as a background.
There are lots of great buildings in this City we have lost; there are countless great trees (200 years old and so big you can't hug the thing) that have been cut down; and so many complete eyesores with terrible retail and reputations as bad places to live that have gone up.
That's not to suggest we shouldn't be densifying and building; we can, should and are doing so.
It's to suggest that the idea that being concerned about those things is unreasonable is, to me, unreasonable.
Now, hiding behind those things, even when poorly justified/evidenced in order to obstruct solid proposals is a different matter; but one requires to consider the individual circumstances of each case to ascertain the merit or lack of same, in any given objection.
First, because they are voters whose reaction to antagonism might see them vote in someone you'd hate; and might create a backlash so hard that it stifles the very development you support.
Second, because when you have selfish concerns (and we all do); we all want our health needs looked after, nice places to live, to be free from violent crime, to enjoy clean air/water, to have convenient shopping of our preferred type, to have a good school nearby if you have kids etc etc.) you're not going to want someone else pointing out that you're being selfish because someone else is sicker, someone else is further from the grocery store, someone else's kid goes to a worse school; you were only assaulted, someone else was murdered.
You want people to be sympathetic to your concerns, so you want to at least appear to be sympathetic to those of others. (before demolishing unreasonable ones) .
I don't doubt your intent; or the legitimacy of much of your point..........though; we are in the fastest developing City in North America, one of the fastest in the developed world and buildings going up at a dizzying pace, so I do think we need to dial back the idea that such groups have actually been placated.
For the most part, the towers proposed are going ahead, generally, at heights most progressives in this forum would have found completely stunning 15 years ago. When a building takes a hair cut to 42 floors, one needs a sense of reality that a 42-storey building is still being built.
egotrippin
Senior Member
Also, will new market rate condos actually do anything to address the affordability issue? It's a multi-pronged issue that's far more complex than build more buildings.
smably
Senior Member
Building new market rate housing won't solve the affordability crisis on its own, at least not in the short term, but obstructing or delaying new market rate construction absolutely will make affordability worse. We need enormous amounts of below-market housing and we also need lots of market housing.
Northern Light
Superstar
Sure; but two things.
1) There has been no delay here, this is the standard process, looks like all the others. I see no reason why this will differ either.
2) As I noted over in the sprawl thread; the industry is very fully taxed and literally cannot build any faster than it is. If this project were approved tonight; it would not start work for months or longer as it awaited crew and equipment availability.