Toronto Massey Tower Condos | 206.95m | 60s | MOD Developments | Hariri Pontarini

[Ramako]

On what planning basis will the city deny proposals of a similar nature, when no complementary benefits are offered?

How about on the basis that there are no complementary benefits being offered?

Do planning staff not have any sense of or ability to exercise discretion, or is the extent of their city building power and expertise limited to simply checking off boxes?

Somewhere along the line there has been a policy failure.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ramako:

How about on the basis that there are no complementary benefits are being offered?
Do planning staff not have any sense of or ability to exercise discretion, or is the extent of their city building power and expertise limited to simply checking off boxes?

I think the best answer to that would be to reference the situation with Festival Tower/TIFF.

Somewhere along the line there has been a policy failure.

There is no "right" or "wrong" policy per se - just depends on what your priorities are.

AoD

 

[Ramako]

There is no "right" or "wrong" policy per se - just depends on what your priorities are.

AoD

The policy failure is that planning staff clearly don't have the ability, or more accurately the will, to exercise discretion due to the fear that the OMB will turn their exceptions into rules, as was the case with Festival Tower and the Entertainment District, as you pointed out. So now you have a planning staff incapable of using discretion, and an OMB making decisions based on precedents that are divorced from planning principles. It's an inherently broken system at odds with itself. The ultimate result is that you have good projects like this being rejected, and disastrous projects in the Entertainment District (such as over restaurant row) being approved. What a clusterf*ck.

That said, if we're stuck with this dueling system, and if the OMB is indeed where we need to look to get projects like Massey Tower approved, then I'm solidly coming down on the side of the OMB.

 

[innsertnamehere]

And thus people seem to start seeing my long standing opinion of how the OMB must stay. To rid it would create a city where nothing gets approved because the city collapses to every NIMBY. I would love to create a better system where height is allowed for strong projects like these, but not other crap projects like 501 Yonge, without the OMB, but te system would simply not work if the OMB be eliminated and the planning department stayed the same.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ramako:

The policy failure is that planning staff clearly don't have the ability, or more accurately the will, to exercise discretion due to the fear that the OMB will turn their exceptions into rules, as was the case with Festival Tower and the Entertainment District, as you pointed out. So now you have a planning staff incapable of using discretion, and an OMB making decisions based on precedents that are divorced from planning principles. It's an inherently broken system at odds with itself. The ultimate result is that you have good projects like this being rejected, and disastrous projects in the Entertainment District (such as over restaurant row) being approved. What a clusterf*ck.

Except that "policy failure" - if it can be called that - also ensures (or at least, attempt to ensure) fairness for all property owners as well, which is also a desirable outcome. Planning staff merely indicated that there are concerns that basically will require a political decision at the city level to override - and that the price of using that override stems from elected officials.

That said, if we're stuck with this dueling system, and if the OMB is indeed where we need to look to get projects like Massey Tower approved, then I'm solidly coming down on the side of the OMB.

Except the OMB will likely be just as inclined to approve other projects once that precedent is set, regardless of the balance and benefits. And let's not forget, it's not a sure thing at that level either (recall Giraffe)

AoD

 

[fedplanner]

And let's not forget, it's not a sure thing at that level either (recall Giraffe)

AoD

This one is in real danger. Mod's CEO must be a very nervous man right now.

 

[Ramako]

Ramako:



Except that "policy failure" - if it can be called that - also ensures (or at least, attempt to ensure) fairness for all property owners as well, which is also a desirable outcome. Planning staff merely indicated that there are concerns that basically will require a political decision at the city level to override - and that the price of using that override stems from elected officials.



Except the OMB will likely be just as inclined to approve other projects once that precedent is set, regardless of the balance and benefits. And let's not forget, it's not a sure thing at that level either (recall Giraffe)

AoD

I'm not going to pretend to have the perfect solution, but I think it's obvious that the current "arrangement" isn't working as well as it should.

In my mind, the bottom line is that Massey Tower should be approved.

 

[Grimace]

^^Yes Giraffe, three years after the OMB turned it down it remains a derelict sales office at a prime (though laughably ugly) intersection, where the latest development is a notice from the City objecting to the failure of the owner to keep graffiti off the building.

On one hand, without the OMB there may be more flexibility on the part of the City to accept these sorts of quality projects without worrying about the precedent. On the other hand, I don't believe there should be a concern about precedent at this location (Massey).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think everyone should read the comments in the report, page 13 onward - it's more nuanced than simply "it's too tall":

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-56135.pdf

Grimace:

On the other hand, I don't believe there should be a concern about precedent at this location (Massey).

Actually, the comments in the report did get into this issue in detail (p. 18/19), particularly wrt to the building south of the site.

AoD

 

[Ramako]

I think everyone should read the comments in the report, page 13 onward - it's more nuanced than simply "it's too tall":

AoD

From the overviewon page 13: "However, staff have the most concern with indications of too much density and overcrowding because of unresolved massing and setback issues".

That's indeed the heart of the matter. Density and overcrowding. In the heart of downtown Toronto.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ramako:

In my mind, the bottom line is that Massey Tower should be approved.

I don't disagree with that, though one should do it with a clear understanding of potential impacts,

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ramako:

No offense, you should quote the whole paragraph:

While the proposal addresses the long term objective for revitalization, and knowing that
compromises typically must be made, there remains aspects of the proposal that require
modification. Certain elements have been balanced off given when the application was filed in
relation to processes underway and other aspects are acceptable but perhaps could use further
refinement. However, staff have the most concern with indications of too much density and
overcrowding because of unresolved massing and setback issues. Specifically, a combination of
a reduced tower floor plate and a setback from the south lot line or incorporation of the site to the
south or another form of mitigation in relation to future potential development to the south would
result in a more balanced outcome.

Not because of too much density and overcrowding per se - but site specific issues that are related to the site south of the proposal.

AoD

 

[raptor]

I believed it was asked before, on a different thread, but how can developers get away with selling units before getting council approval?

 

[Ramako]

:

However, staff have the most concern with indications of too much density and
overcrowding because of unresolved massing and setback issues. Specifically, a combination of
a reduced tower floor plate and a setback from the south lot line or incorporation of the site to the
south or another form of mitigation in relation to future potential development to the south would
result in a more balanced outcome.

The fear being, as discussed later on in report, that the potential future development of the Heintzman Building would create too much density and overcrowding on the block. We can wade through the minutiae and parse the report all we want. The point remains, as was noted in the staff's overview, that their biggest concern relates to density and overcrowding.

 

[Ramako]

I believed it was asked before, on a different thread, but how can developers get away with selling units before getting council approval?

In short, there's no law that says they can't. However, you do have to be a licensed builder to sell units pursuant to the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act, and the agreements of purchase and sale aren't valid until the buyer has been provided with a disclosure pursuant to the Condominium Act. You can also bet that the agreements are conditional on the thing actually being built.