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

marsh said:
How can city council go ahead and approve it in light of the planning report? It seems there are a number of concerns. The city planners are just implementing the official plan and related guidelines that were adopted by the province and the city. It seems to be me that if this gets approved than the whole planning process is a joke. I don't want to see these buildings left stagnant either but developers are very experienced - they know the official plan; they know the guidelines for development and tall towers. They should have considered this before purchasing the property and come up with a design that conforms to the official plan and guidelines rather than just assuming they can just ignore it.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, money always wins, and this will likely get approved one way or another (OMB?), thus once again rewarding developers for breaking the rules and not even attempting to find a solution that is appropriate to the site.

Not to mention I can think of plenty of things that could have been done to create residential uses on this site that are far more interesting than another point tower dropped onto the site.
 
SP!RE said:
Unfortunately, money always wins, and this will likely get approved one way or another (OMB?), thus once again rewarding developers for breaking the rules and not even attempting to find a solution that is appropriate to the site.

Not to mention I can think of plenty of things that could have been done to create residential uses on this site that are far more interesting than another point tower dropped onto the site.
Click to expand...

Gee breaking the rules:confused:...come-on, the city gets milions and millions of Sec.37 dollars from each developer to deal with those rules.
how easy now to say, that plenty of things that could have been done to create residential uses, when just a couple years ago it was an abandoned heritage dump
 
AG, if you want to post again in a way that is coherent or makes sense, I would greatly appreciate that.

I also don't know what the fact that it was abandoned a couple years ago has to do with the low level of creativity shown in how the site is being handled. You may be happy to settle for yet another point tower, but I am interested in seeing more diversity of built form. One of the first things an architect learns is how to design FOR THE SITE.

I bet you even I could create a massing scheme for this site that most people would find to be more interesting, engaging and appropriate for the site (and interact more interestingly with its heritage features). There's no doubt that many people could. But the developer wants to squeeze maximum profit out of the site, so that means "just draw us a point tower scheme, please". And you are willing to settle for that, as always.

You may want to settle for the "same old same old" but plenty of us realize that it doesn't have to be that way. Please don't expect us to lower our expectations.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
^ Theatre Park was very similar
Click to expand...


no, theatre park was not very similar. theatre park was bitterly opposed by the councilor and ended up getting approved only on account of a somewhat surprising OMB ruling in its favour. this project is supported by the councilor and will not end up in front of the OMB.
 
SP!RE said:
AG, if you want to post again in a way that is coherent or makes sense, I would greatly appreciate that.
Click to expand...

I think you lack comprehension skills. What he said was not just coherent, but it is in fact the truth. You claim that the owner is only interested in squeezing out the most profit (that is actually the goal of every developer, but I won't get into that), but yet they were willing to go above and beyond what was required in compensation to the city. If this is rejected, it will reenforce the idea that making a proposal more desirable through incentives won't make it more likely to be approved. How will that benefit the city?
 
Section 37 is only one factor in making planning decisions for the city. It should absolutely not be the defining factor in decisions.
 
DtTO said:
I think you lack comprehension skills. What he said was not just coherent, but it is in fact the truth. You claim that the owner is only interested in squeezing out the most profit (that is actually the goal of every developer, but I won't get into that)
Click to expand...

Many people are still holding out hope that human beings will all collectively realize we're all better off if we work together and not for ourselves, while singing Kumbaya.

When I used to work on policy, I used to get into arguments with people all the time. They'd go something like this:


Mr. X.: The real problem with the high cost of cellular phone service in Canada is greed.

Me: Well, if we allowed unfettered access to foreign competition into the market, the big players wouldn't be able to maintain their oligopoly.

Mr. X: Yes, but then we'll be paying all the profits to foreigners. Why can't we address the fact that this is a problem caused by greed?

Me: ... [blank stare for 60 uncomfortable seconds]


That's how about 70% of Canadians think, which is why sensible economic reforms are never possible. It's also why we can't have nice things. Because the greedy developers must be stopped! Because they're greedy.
 
Last edited:
"That's how about 70% of Canadians think, which is why sensible economic reforms are never possible."
QUOTE: brockm.

Too true.


Regards,
J T
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee breaking the rules:confused:...come-on, the city gets milions and millions of Sec.37 dollars from each developer to deal with those rules.
how easy now to say, that plenty of things that could have been done to create residential uses, when just a couple years ago it was an abandoned heritage dump
Click to expand...

The City isn't breaking any rules with section 37 funds, they are legally negotiated when a proposed project exceeds height or density of the site and the money goes towards community benefits. This is a very challenging site to develop, I was amazed when I first saw MOD's proposal so I don't buy in that plenty of things could have been done with the former Canadian Bank of Commerce building, which is not a "dump".
 
I don't understand how Mod Developments can spend tons of money on restoration, market and sell the majority of the units and still be cocky confident when faced with a Refusal Report from city planning.

Someone please enlighten me to what's really going on with Massey Tower.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
they are legally negotiated when a proposed project exceeds height or density of the site and the money goes towards community benefits.
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention that those height/density limits are not even in line with the built form of the city in most areas anymore. They're decades old with no relevance whatsoever. Nearly every tower that has gone up in the recent boom has surpassed these artificial limits. We should question why our city is managing finances so poorly. They shouldn't have to depend on Sec. 37 funds at all. A city should be self sufficient on taxes (which are already too high compared to the suburbs) and such alone, and not have to "negotiate" for more money in order to stay out of the red. It's a ridiculous concept to accept, but maybe if our council would look into it if they weren't so preoccupied dealing with federal-level issues like immigration? Maybe if we weren't building subway lines to the boonies?

Tell me, how does a city like Mississauga deal with so much development, have lower taxes than us, and continue to stay out of the red?
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
DtTO:

s. 37 contributions do not go into the operating budget, and as such has little to do with "the red".

AoD
Click to expand...

While that is technically true, they do finance public works projects which are expected to be financed by the city. That is, unless you don't expect the city to be able to afford a single new park without taking in these "extra funds." I do though. A city should be able to provide parks and other such "Section 37 projects" through their regular operating budget, not by bartering with developers.
 
DtTO:

There is no such thing as a "should" - one way or another money will be derived from some source, though some mechanism. Besides, I can just as easily argue that if we are to do away with s37, then one should perhaps enforce the zoning limits more assertively? Or perhaps go the NYC route - state clearly what costs are associated with going above and beyond initial density rights.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top