Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

[nfitz]

You have to ban everyone. "Keep Our Parks Clean. Stay the **** out."

Indeed. The British have it right, where it's not unusual to see "Keep off the Grass" signs in public parks!

Next we need to improve transit reliability, by banning riders. If the buses didn't keep stopping everywhere, they'd be on time.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The city should ban thunderstorms. They get too noisy if one is trying to sleep.

 

[AndreaPalladio]

Also, sometimes they flood streets, making impossible for Very Important People to drive to their Urgent Destinations. Stop the war on cars!

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The city should ban thunderstorms. They get too noisy if one is trying to sleep.

I like thunderstorms though, so they shouldn't be banned. They're fun to watch.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Indeed. The British have it right, where it's not unusual to see "Keep off the Grass" signs in public parks!

Next we need to improve transit reliability, by banning riders. If the buses didn't keep stopping everywhere, they'd be on time.

The biggest single contributor to delays on the TTC is passengers using the Emergency Alarms. And most of the time here alarms are used is because of medical reasons.

Keeping that in mind, I propose banning physically unfit persons from using the TTC. If you're old or have any kind of health condition that could potentially delay the TTC, then you can walk to wherever you're going. And these people better not die or have a medial emergency while walking. That would cost even more money! Not to mention that the sounds ambulances make is annoying.

The other big contributor to alarm use is crime. We can solve that by banning crime.

 

[Johnny Au]

Many serious injuries and deaths occur outside one's home. We should ban going outside.

Dihydrogen monoxide is very deadly. Millions of people die from it each year. Therefore, it should be banned.

Children are responsible for reducing one's quality of life, accumulating debt, world hunger, and climate change. Therefore, we should stop giving birth (oh, and robots make having children obsolete). Having children in fiction would be permitted though. After all, in reality, I want to be childless for the rest of my life.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Has this been mentioned yet?

Ossington residents up in arms over ‘massive’ vertical split duplexes

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/14...in-arms-over-massive-vertical-split-duplexes/

 

[howl]

Has this been mentioned yet?

Ossington residents up in arms over ‘massive’ verheretical split duplexes

http://metronews.ca/news/toronto/14...in-arms-over-massive-vertical-split-duplexes/

Reading the comment section of that article sheds a lot more light on the problem. If what some of the commenters say is true, it appears that through some loophole the zoning currently allows much bigger buildings than the older stock of houses common in the neighbourhood. That means developers can build what are effectively 'monster' homes in an established neighbourhood without applying for a zoning amendment. They just need a building and demolition permit.
If the zoning was more reflective of what was there now developers would need to apply for a zoning amendment to build a monster home, which would give the city and residents an opportunity to comment on the plans and perhaps make them more compatible with the existing neighbourhood fabric.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Actually this type of densification is exactly the type you want in SFH neighbourhoods. Having overly stringent rules would basically gives the residents not to comment on - but to shut down any attempt to intensify. Carry on, I'd say.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

What is so objectionable about the size of the building in the photo? It doesn't appear to be notably higher than its neighbours.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Actually this type of densification is exactly the type you want in SFH neighbourhoods. Having overly stringent rules would basically gives the residents not to comment on - but to shut down any attempt to intensify. Carry on, I'd say.

AoD

Yes exactly. We need to encourage Missing Middle Housing in the city so our neighbourhoods can continue to intensify and increase with density while maintaining the build form and character of the neighbourhood.

Missing Middle Housing gives us low-rise build form with high enough density to be serviceable by public transit for instance.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

What is so objectionable about the size of the building in the photo? It doesn't appear to be notably higher than its neighbours.

I agree -- if someone tore down a small bungalow and put up a three-story East York-style re-build, with the garage 'main floor', would they be happier because it was a single family house? That looks like any other inner city new house, except it's split into two dwellings.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes exactly. We need to encourage Missing Middle Housing in the city so our neighbourhoods can continue to intensify and increase with density while maintaining the build form and character of the neighbourhood.

Missing Middle Housing gives us low-rise build form with high enough density to be serviceable by public transit for instance.

Indeed. And notice how that whole affordability argument came up again. There is nothing affordable about living in a single detached house this close to the core going forward, ever. In fact, the inability to densify only serves to limit the amount of housing in the neighbourhood, which could only drive up prices. I just love how all these self-interest wrap themselves up in all that altruistic BS.

AoD

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

I wonder her thoughts on these being built across the street. The townhome from the Motif project

 

[the lemur]

Yes please. Kids are obnoxious and scream too much.

Something that adults never do.