I'd posit that they have to make a recommendation one way or the other, that's what they're paid for!
42
Toronto Massey Tower Condos | 206.95m | 60s | MOD Developments | Hariri Pontarini
I'd posit that they have to make a recommendation one way or the other, that's what they're paid for!
42
CN Tower
Banned
Can't say that there's much to like about this 100% foreign investor driven project so I support the planning department's refusal. Even more perplexing is why anyway would choose to reside in this area. It's a ghost town after 6.
Softee
Active Member
^ Yonge and Queen is a ghost town after six? In what alternate universe?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
You agree with Planning's (silly and short-sighted) objection to the building's physical dimensions because you disagree with the way (you perceive) the building to have been sold? Prescient.
Pop Quiz: If it is a 'ghost town' (it's not, but let's indulge our imaginations), would the solution to that condition be to add more people or to not add more people?
CN Tower
Banned
It's just a crappy spot for a res tower. Better for commercial/office.
It is a ghost town.
Your opinion just as silly & short sighted as Planning. Grow up. The have legit concerns here.
Ramako
Moderator
Is this comment supposed to be satirical?
CN Tower
Banned
If you honestly think that Yonge & Shuter is a desirable neighborhood to live in then I have a feeling you're not from Toronto.
WiddleBittyKitty
Felis catus
It really is the most non-sensical comment I've seen on UrbanToronto in a while, and that's saying something.
PE is correct on every count here. No, it is not a ghost town, by any stretch of the imagination, and yes, if it were, adding residents to the area would be the perfect solution.
There are few better developments proposed for this city than Massey Tower. Few so well thought out, few so generous in what they give back. Sure it breaks some rules, as it would appear from my reading of the report, but luckily the report is a recommendation and not the final say. The City's politicians should be able to see beyond the rules and regs here to what is best for this block.
I cannot imagine a better outcome for this block than to have this tower built. Can anyone?
Ramako
Moderator
I was born and raised in Toronto and have been through every inch of that neighbourhood countless times. In fact the entire stretch of Yonge between Front and Dundas is actually one of my favourite summertime lunch break strolls.
If you don't think that there are boatloads of people that would love to live at this location, then I have the feeling that you've never stepped foot outside Toronto.
CN Tower
Banned
It's not a neighborhood. It's a vacuous corridor on outskirts of the financial district. I suppose if hospitals, lifeless street life & jeans shops are your thing this would appeal to your senses. The theatre is great as an in/out attraction. Oh there's always the allure of the occasional Eaton Centre gang shooting that I overlooked as well.
Hint: not every inch of south of Bloor is an appropriate spot for condos, just so you're aware. The planners don't want this to be a precedent for more 60 storey quasi student residence projects.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
FYI, the planners aren't against the idea of the site used for residential purposes, much less this case being a precedent for residential projects elsewhere. It's the how, not the what. The planners would have just as much issue if this is an office tower.
And speaking of "lifeless street" - well, it didn't stop Pantanges/Opus and the upcoming HNR redevelopment.
AoD
And speaking of "lifeless street" - well, it didn't stop Pantanges/Opus and the upcoming HNR redevelopment.
AoD
Last edited:
Ramako
Moderator
How much time have you actually spent in this area? Your characterization of it just doesn't jive with the reality that I'm familiar with. You make it sound like a ghetto.
Last edited:
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
I remember you making an almost identical comment when this was launched. It was moronic then, it's still moronic now.
What kind of students do you know that could afford to live in this building? I should have made richer friends.
fedplanner
Active Member
I really enjoyed reading the article. It is well worth the wait. I hope many take interchange's advice and voice support!
If you feel strongly about your opinions, let your councilor know! This has the potential of sending a message to both the city and the development community that mediocre will not command public support and that high quality development should be welcomed and encouraged. Below are members of the Toronto\East York Community Council that will presumably vote on Massey Tower around 10 to 11am tomorrow at City Hall. If you can't attend the meeting, consider emailing your councilor.
Gord Perks
Paula Fletcher
Ana Bailão
Janet Davis
Mary Fragedakis
Mike Layton
Josh Matlow
Pam McConnell
Mary-Margaret McMahon
Joe Mihevc
Adam Vaughan
Kristyn Wong-Tam
If you feel strongly about your opinions, let your councilor know! This has the potential of sending a message to both the city and the development community that mediocre will not command public support and that high quality development should be welcomed and encouraged. Below are members of the Toronto\East York Community Council that will presumably vote on Massey Tower around 10 to 11am tomorrow at City Hall. If you can't attend the meeting, consider emailing your councilor.
Gord Perks
Paula Fletcher
Ana Bailão
Janet Davis
Mary Fragedakis
Mike Layton
Josh Matlow
Pam McConnell
Mary-Margaret McMahon
Joe Mihevc
Adam Vaughan
Kristyn Wong-Tam
Peepers
Banned
After reading the detailed cover story on this project I see absolutely no reason why this project should not be approved as proposed (did Wong-Tam decline comment?).
The developer has an agreement with Allied Properties who own the adjacent property and Allied have entered an agreement with MOD not to develop a tower on their property. I believe the legal term for such an agreement is "Real covenant" and it would be binding in perpetuity. Given this fact why did city planners have concerns about the tower being built on the property line? What "dangerous precedent" were they afraid this would set? If anything this looks like it could be used as a model for future developments. I am sure that in entering an agreement with MOD , Allied must be getting a sum of money (the agreement wouldn't be binding otherwise).
The developer has an agreement with Allied Properties who own the adjacent property and Allied have entered an agreement with MOD not to develop a tower on their property. I believe the legal term for such an agreement is "Real covenant" and it would be binding in perpetuity. Given this fact why did city planners have concerns about the tower being built on the property line? What "dangerous precedent" were they afraid this would set? If anything this looks like it could be used as a model for future developments. I am sure that in entering an agreement with MOD , Allied must be getting a sum of money (the agreement wouldn't be binding otherwise).