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

gristle said:
I am curious about your conclusion. How did you arrive at it? Why would the city not be for the better if the city had control over its planning and operated it's own dispute settlement body?
Click to expand...

Look anywhere else in North America: NIMBYs and the politicians that rely on their votes. People seem to have be a natural resistance to change. Infill projects get attention and are shot down. Development on the fringe of town is much easier to go through approvals because there is no opposition and there are no traffic concerns on the local road network.

The OMB forces the politicians to work with planners and developers to get the best possible development with the alternative being a wildcard at the OMB.

I'm always amazed at those that rally against the OMB. Toronto is one of the greatest cities in North America. We study you in our schools and governments. You guys are doing something right, don't you think? Would you rather copy an American city? The grass isn't always greener.
 
It is odd that the planning department would reject a proposal that offers the city so many advantages from land donation to historical preservation and places a tall building in the heart of the city - where intuitivly it should be - and base their rejection on issues of a "planning" nature??

Planning is doing no one a service here and in fact run the very real risk of having their rejection overturned by the OMB, sterilizing the very policies they are trying to uphold. It certainly seems like this project is well thought out and well designed, is their any possibility the someone is trying to force the hand city planners by having the OMB approve this project and thereby make approval for a massive tower at the Heintzman property (or other) all the easier?

Smells like politics are involved. Compared to many othe projects that were approved with less benefit, something is askew.
 
Politics are not involved in this refusal, exactly the opposite: politics can come into play when the amendments asked for are lesser. The problem here, as in the 89 Avenue Road proposal, is that the request exceeds what is allowed by the zoning to such a great degree. When the zoning bylaw requirements are only exceeded somewhat, there's more wiggle more. The Planning Department didn't find any wiggle room here. These are zoning bylaws they are dealing with, not zoning suggestions.

42
 
gristle said:
I am curious about your conclusion. How did you arrive at it? Why would the city not be for the better if the city had control over its planning and operated it's own dispute settlement body?
Click to expand...

The reason for the existence of the OMB is to remove the risk of local political nonsense preventing good projects from proceeding.
 
interchange42 said:
Politics are not involved in this refusal, exactly the opposite: politics can come into play when the amendments asked for are lesser. The problem here, as in the 89 Avenue Road proposal, is that the request exceeds what is allowed by the zoning to such a great degree. When the zoning bylaw requirements are only exceeded somewhat, there's more wiggle more. The Planning Department didn't find any wiggle room here. These are zoning bylaws they are dealing with, not zoning suggestions.

42
Click to expand...

So how does that compare to Aura or the Mirvish proposal? A I recall they also exceed bylaw requirements.
 
Aura is set back enough from surrounding properties that there was enough wiggle room, but yes, there was also some influence from a more blatantly pro-development Councillor. Mirvish+Gehry will run into significant opposition from the planning department.

42
 
I went back and read the entire Aura thread. As it turns out, the development was refused by the planning department leading to a similar fury of discussions that we are seeing now. I also read the city council meeting minutes. IIRC, Kyle Rae moved to adopt the planning departments recommendations but added that the city should continue to negotiate with the developer while they appealed to the OMB. Enough common ground between the city and developer was reached and the OMB appeal was settled before getting too far along at the OMB. The end result was a 75-storey building that was increased up to 78 thanks to the folks at the committee of adjustments.

Fascinating stuff if anyone ever wanted some bedtime readings.
 
Thanks for that. I had forgotten those details, but I knew that Aura's height had not come about from an OMB ruling.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Politics are not involved in this refusal, exactly the opposite: politics can come into play when the amendments asked for are lesser. The problem here, as in the 89 Avenue Road proposal, is that the request exceeds what is allowed by the zoning to such a great degree. When the zoning bylaw requirements are only exceeded somewhat, there's more wiggle more. The Planning Department didn't find any wiggle room here. These are zoning bylaws they are dealing with, not zoning suggestions.

42
Click to expand...

Those zoning Policies are old enough to be completely irrelevant. They're from a time when nothing tall existed between Queen and Bloor. That has obviously changed. Sadly, our city's planning department is more interested in lowering height limits (through the tall buildings study) than raising them. I wonder what Wynne's new position signifies. Hasn't she made comments about relinquishing OMB jurisdiction over Toronto before? If that goes through, we'll get narrow minded councillors with no vision for the city rejecting anything over 50 meters.
 
we'll get narrow minded councillors with no vision for the city rejecting anything over 50 meters.
Click to expand...

A perfect opportunity for you to excercise your democratic right to elect a councillor who does what you want them to do.
 
So assuming that City Council doesn't simply ignore staff's recommendation, what is the likely next step here? Modifying the floorplate of the tower? Off to the OMB? Some kind of settlement with the city?
 
DtTO:

Those zoning Policies are old enough to be completely irrelevant. They're from a time when nothing tall existed between Queen and Bloor. That has obviously changed. Sadly, our city's planning department is more interested in lowering height limits (through the tall buildings study) than raising them. I wonder what Wynne's new position signifies. Hasn't she made comments about relinquishing OMB jurisdiction over Toronto before? If that goes through, we'll get narrow minded councillors with no vision for the city rejecting anything over 50 meters.
Click to expand...

How can the Tall Buildings Study lower height limits when as you say, the existing zoning policies are completely irrelevant (i.e. code word for low) to begin with? Are you suggesting the study actually lowered those height limits to below what's currently on the books?

And since we're on this topic and noticing that you're at Cityplace - what do you think of the Block 31 social housing proposal and the rezoning for that (now dead) project?

AoD
 
If Mod takes this to the OMB, how long would it take for a decision? 2 months, 6 months, 1 year?

I’ve purchased here, so I’m obviously curious about deposits, etc…
 
Ramako said:
So assuming that City Council doesn't simply ignore staff's recommendation, what is the likely next step here? Modifying the floorplate of the tower? Off to the OMB? Some kind of settlement with the city?
Click to expand...

MOD could alter their south elevation to have no windows or balconies, which would assuage the concerns about impacting the development potential of the neighbouring property. However, this is obviously a non-starter for MOD. But this is the solution proposed whenever there is a zero setback from the lot line, like at 89 Avenue Rd.
 
HDLtd said:
MOD could alter their south elevation to have no windows or balconies, which would assuage the concerns about impacting the development potential of the neighbouring property. However, this is obviously a non-starter for MOD. But this is the solution proposed whenever there is a zero setback from the lot line, like at 89 Avenue Rd.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately that would destroy the architectural design of the tower. I'm not sure why we must have blank walls facing lots lines anyway. I'd rather have a window or balcony than drywall.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top