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

[fedplanner]

Nowhere else in North America is there a body with the extensive range and power of the OMB. You fail to acknowledge that.

It's difficult to debate this issue with you when you're being outright dishonest. The powers and the extent of their use that OMB and province of Ontario have over it's municipalities on land use and planning matters is unique. Where did you get the idea that I claimed otherwise?

You also fail to acknowledge that there are very critical elements of planning that the OMB does not involve itself in. The tendency is to focus on envelope and virtually nothing else. Your reference to NIMBY's, as typical, diminishes the fact that these are the human beings who populate this city, and not some reducible element that can be done away with by way of a derisive title.

The OMB handles appeals. It doesn't replace the planning process. Usually a developers or ratepayer association will appeal on height and/or density determinations (or lack there of) by municipalities. The OMB will probably not speak to urban design or parking requirements if the issue being appealed is height.

Your reference to NIMBY's, as typical, diminishes the fact that these are the human beings who populate this city, and not some reducible element that can be done away with by way of a derisive title.

NIMBYism exists. It's a well documented phenomenon. The city of Toronto held extensive public consultations to develop a new Official Plan for the city awhile back. The Official Plan speaks to desification of the downtown core and other Centres along with having mixed-use Avenues run along the Main Street. It's a very good plan, and I believe people support this plan... until change happens in their own backyard. It seems to be human nature to be okay with with change as long as it does not happen in their neighborhood. Looks no further to the challenges for development of the midrise buildings on Queen Street and Ossington. The York Quay folks especially crack me. They purchase a unit in a highrise condo then actively campaign against other highrise condos coming to the neighborhood. They complain about traffic or loss of a view without recognizing that they themselves contribute to traffic when they drive a car or their highrise building presumably blocked a view from someone else. As if they have the right to live there but no one else.

Not all NIMBYism is bad. I particularly admire Jane Jacob's revolt to save Greenwich Village from "urban renewal" planning philosophies of the 1960s and her work in Toronto to stop the Spadina expressway.

Also, your assumption of an either/or scenario when it comes to criticism of a development shows quite conclusively that you haven't been involved in much of the development debate for the King-Spadina area of the city

I'm vaguely familiar with "the Kings" study the city did a couple decades ago. I believe this is when Toronto started to push back against conventional planning norms at the time, relaxed zoning for the area and encouraged mixed-use development. But other than that you're right. I'm an outsider looking in and I like what I see going on in Toronto.

...

I think Toronto should have more effective control over its planning and should generate a more mature planning process because it is a mature city. But this can't happen if the process is under the paternalistic smack-down of an unelected body staffed by appointees who may not even be from Toronto. They do not do planning. Why would anyone want them to in the position of constantly making planning decisions?

That is your opinion and you have a right to express it to your elected leaders at the province.

I would love to continue this debate, but I'm being told that it's now or never for happy hour. Perhaps I'll continue tonight.

 

[DtTO]

Are you sure NYC doesn't have height limits? Have a read of how the bonusing system works there:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2010/03/28/new_york_planning_chief_offers_tips.html

How is it significantly different from what we have in Toronto?

It isn't about what NYC's current planning chief thinks, It's about what NYC has historically done. I don't take anyone who says this seriously: "the need to preserve single-family neighbourhoods in Queens dependent on the automobile." Do you?

Let me flip the question back to you - who is city staff to to tell people that height is by default the most desirable characteristic?

I wasn't implying they tell people height is the most desirable characteristic, but that they shouldn't be discouraging it and treating it like the plague. The city is mostly (by a very very significant margin) low rise. Even most of the city's urban areas are low rise. If you were so afraid of heights, and if shadowing is such a concern to you that you have a stroke just thinking about the thought of coming across a building's shadow on a sidewalk, why move to the core? Do you see skyscraper enthusiasts enforcing their ideals on other areas of the city? I have yet to hear anyone say "the minimum height limit for The Junction is now 20s."

Just what is the built form around the Absolute site prior to the site being developed exactly?

You tell me:

And tell me how is that similar to this particular example, and we shall talk.

It isn't. My point is that Absolute was allowed to go up at close to 200m in a suburban area, while our city regularly denies projects shorter than that here:

Now imagine the OMB hadn't been around. I doubt that anything in the Entertainment District, which is literally a stone throw away from the Financial District, would be over 5s. This example will be even better in a few years when they have rejected the Mirvish and Convention Centre proposals out of fear of the "height precedent" set. You can argue that the casino would be the ultimate undoing of the MTCC, but I have no doubt in my mind that their biggest objection to the Mirvish/Gehry proposal will be its height. That's to be expected from councillors/planners who have no vision and use current built form to determine the maximum height for the city's most desirable area.

So you have one potential case of special treatment (mainly because a certain individual at the city hall wanted an icon)

Before I get to the rest of your statement, I wanted to point out that the desire to have nice architecture in the city is not a bad thing. There's nothing wrong with giving developers special incentives to create icons in our city. However, sadly, our city doesn't even recognize the meaning of "good architecture." They'd rather focus all their energy looking at spreadsheets with massing measurements and heights to see if any of those numbers exceed their limits.

you are extending it to the entire city saying that it is their modus operandi in the planning realm, and that the case isn't "unbiased", "non arbitrary". Really?

Mississauga has done nothing but encourage development and intensification, especially when it involves an urban public realm. They value many things over height and massing, and it is obvious in their development. Look at the old satellite view I posted above. Most of the projects that were constructed there would've been deemed "overbuilt" by Toronto standards (relatively speaking, not in absolute terms).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It isn't about what NYC's current planning chief thinks, It's about what NYC has historically done. I don't take anyone who says this seriously: "the need to preserve single-family neighbourhoods in Queens dependent on the automobile." Do you?

Before we get all revisionist, here is what you've said originally:

It is irrelevant, because it assumes that height limits are beneficial to a city. Tell that to NYC, Chicago, etc.

Nowhere did it say that it's from a historical perspective. Besides, the sky has not fallen in spite of the said city having height limits - can you honestly say that NYC currently suffered because of its' presence? And no offense to you, but I am more inclined to take anyone who made it to being the planning commissioner than an armchair enthusiast, if you don't mind me saying. I will get back to you on the single-family bit in a second.

I wasn't implying they tell people height is the most desirable characteristic, but that they shouldn't be discouraging it and treating it like the plague. The city is mostly (by a very very significant margin) low rise. Even most of the city's urban areas are low rise. If you were so afraid of heights, and if shadowing is such a concern to you that you have a stroke just thinking about the thought of coming across a building's shadow on a sidewalk, why move to the core? Do you see skyscraper enthusiasts enforcing their ideals on other areas of the city? I have yet to hear anyone say "the minimum height limit for The Junction is now 20s."

Just because most of the city is of a low-rise built form isn't a carte-blanche that high-rise is by default desirable for the rest, nor does it meant that it is equally valid within every spot in the core. Bringing the shadowing argument when no one even raised this as a key issue in this particular case is a strawman. And yes, there are no calls for minimum height requirement, but there had certainly been calls from various quarters of minimum density requirements.

It isn't. My point is that Absolute was allowed to go up at close to 200m in a suburban area, while our city regularly denies projects shorter than that here

And my point is - how much of a context is there for negative impacts to occur? It doesn't abut any site - and certainly the two towers in question isn't stone throw from another property. Context, like I say. Besides, how many Absolutes are there in Mississauga, and how many 200M+ buildings did the city approve over the years?

Mississauga has done nothing but encourage development and intensification, especially when it involves an urban public realm. They value many things over height and massing, and it is obvious in their development. Look at the old satellite view I posted above. Most of the projects that were constructed there would've been deemed "overbuilt" by Toronto standards (relatively speaking, not in absolute terms).

That is quite laughable, really. Have you actually traveled along Burnhamthrope and looked at the built form of most of the new developments? Please, please, I beg you, tell me that the planning in the MCC isn't driven by height restrictions, massing and transitions? Like say, in the case of Parkside Village?
http://www5.mississauga.ca/agendas/planning/2009/01_12_09/Item02HOZ06008W4.pdf

Most of the projects constructed will be deemed average to below average in terms of intensity by downtown Toronto standards (frankly, it's more Cityplace than anything, sans Signature). And as promised, let me get back to the issue of single-family neighbourhoods - guess which city also holds that as a sarconsanct, the rhetoric of "urban public realm" notwithstanding. Please look at the massing for Parkside Village again - and in particular, how it transitions. This constant droning on about Absolute and MCC is like someone looking at CN Tower and telling me that's the built form of the city at large.

Anyhow, it's getting rather off topic and I'd much rather talk about Massey than Mississauga in this thread.

AoD

 

[Big Daddy]

...Not all NIMBYism is bad. I particularly admire Jane Jacob's revolt to save Greenwich Village from "urban renewal" planning philosophies of the 1960s and her work in Toronto to stop the Spadina expressway.

I agree, however, while they did stop the expressway and declare Toronto a transit city - they promptly forgot to build the transit. FAIL

 

[bmiller]

I was looking forward to seeing this proposal built. It's not over yet, but it doesn't look good. It would be a shame to see the old bank unused, and falling to pieces. Maybe they will buy the Heintzman Building, and use it for something else as part of the development. Wishful thinking i guess. Considering the amount of money spent on this project, and the sales they have, i can imagine some attempt to salvage it.

 

[Peepers]

I wonder what the position of the local Councillor is on this project. Has Wong-Tam ever expressed an opinion for or against the project in its proposed form? Will she support the position of the planning department or will she and her colleagues vote to approve the project in its proposed form?

This would be a good subject for a UT cover story. Let's hear Wong-Tams position on this project. When it was first announced she refused comment (or at least did not return calls). I don't think we should allow Councillors to to play coy in these matters. I think voters have a right to know the position of an elected politician.

The one question I have about the current design however is how did the developer propose to handle the fact that the Tower is built right up to the property lines of the adjacent properties. Do they have agreement for the air-rights from the neighboring buildings on the north and south? I didn't think the building bylaws allowed windows on the side of a building built to the property line.

If they don't have agreement on air-rights what is stopping other developers from building sixty storey towers on either side of the Massey Tower completely boxing in the views from the north and south? (as happened with some eastern exposure units in the Hudson when "Charlie" was built )

 

[interchange42]

This would be a good subject for a UT cover story.

A few days away.

42

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

I wonder what the position of the local Councillor is on this project. Has Wong-Tam ever expressed an opinion for or against the project in its proposed form? Will she support the position of the planning department or will she and her colleagues vote to approve the project in its proposed form?

This would be a good subject for a UT cover story. Let's hear Wong-Tams position on this project. When it was first announced she refused comment (or at least did not return calls). I don't think we should allow Councillors to to play coy in these matters. I think voters have a right to know the position of an elected politician.

Why would any Councillor return calls to comment on a project as soon as it is announced? Doing so could create a bias, is rather undemocratic to the neighbourhood involved and I would think unfair to the Planner involved. Once the City Planner releases the preliminary report and the Planner/Councillor has publicly consulted with the developer, neighbourhood association(s), BIA etc then I think the Councillor would be in a position to comment if called upon.

 

[fedplanner]

Why would any Councillor return calls to comment on a project as soon as it is announced? Doing so could create a bias, is rather undemocratic to the neighbourhood involved and I would think unfair to the Planner involved. Once the City Planner releases the preliminary report and the Planner/Councillor has publicly consulted with the developer, neighbourhood association(s), BIA etc then I think the Councillor would be in a position to comment if called upon.

There is nothing inherently wrong with commenting on a project. Even before a development application may be officially submitted to the city, a councilor can speak his mind. There is nothing unethical about it. Adam Vaughan came out swinging against the Oxford proposal and at the same time gave comments about Mirvish+Ghery and he's one of the better councilors on council. Since you live in Wong Tam ward, any chance you can send her an email asking for her position on this project now that it will be up for vote in 10 days or so?

 

[fedplanner]

What the planning department is trying to avoid is a precedent which will result in something like this:

The photo is from Marina Bay in Singapore. If Massey Tower and the Heintzman Building gets developed, the result may be towers that are even closer together! It's a legtimate discussion to have. What should be the minimum distance between towers in Toronto?

In theory, Massey Tower could have been only 20 storeys tall and still would have been recommended for rejection if I'm reading the planning department's concerns correctly.

 

[fedplanner]

One last question about the OMB. If it were to be abolished completely, would land-use matters just end up going through the court system like it does in the states when there are disagreements?

 

[fedplanner]

This will probably piss off a few people. lol

https://twitter.com/fedplanner/status/303258513491230722

At least we'll hopefully get an answer.

 

[Automation Gallery]

There is nothing inherently wrong with commenting on a project. Even before a development application may be officially submitted to the city, a councilor can speak his mind. There is nothing unethical about it. ?

Wong Tam had negative comments on the 80 storey, 50 Bloor street west development as soon as it was announced
from what i understand, she is still totaly against it

 

[Peepers]

There is nothing inherently wrong with commenting on a project. Even before a development application may be officially submitted to the city, a councilor can speak his mind. There is nothing unethical about it. Adam Vaughan came out swinging against the Oxford proposal and at the same time gave comments about Mirvish+Ghery and he's one of the better councilors on council. Since you live in Wong Tam ward, any chance you can send her an email asking for her position on this project now that it will be up for vote in 10 days or so?

I agree. There is no reason why a Councillor cannot come out and express an opinion for or against a project and express reasons why. As elected officials the voters have a right to know what their position is on any particular matter.

I have sent an email to Wong-Tam asking her position on this project. If I get a reply I will share it on this forum. I would urge others to do so as well:

councillor_wongtam@toronto.ca

 

[bmiller]

As it stands, then neither property can be developed. Would they allow one to be developed with restrictions placed on development of the other? A case like this must have come along, with a precedent ruling.