News   Jul 02, 2024
Pinnacle Toronto East's Towers Rising on Sheppard in Scarborough
 589     0 
News   Jul 02, 2024
Retail Flagships, Supertalls, and Construction Made Headlines in June, 2024
 2.1K     0 
News   Jul 02, 2024
News Roundup for July 2, 2024
 686     0 

Toronto Ridiculous NIMBYism thread

4 stories is nothing. For the most part those NIMBYs weren't that extreme. I don't know if it's because the system is more pro-housing or because they're Canadian.
 
WislaHD said:
Hold your pitchforks, some of these NIMBYs might be a little reasonable. I quoted one individual above who raises an interesting point. I've seen people call for the intensificiation of Rosedale before on this forum, could it be a case of the old proverb "be careful of what you wish for"?
Click to expand...

Except the the whole transit argument in this case is bogus - the area is close to the core - it is suitable for densification regardless.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Except the the whole transit argument in this case is bogus - the area is close to the core - it is suitable for densification regardless.

AoD
Click to expand...
You are assuming these people would be using transit. If they are moving into $2.5 million homes, then I am going to take a guess and say they can probably afford to drive. This intensification project is not adding transit users, it is likely adding dozens of cars into the streets.

There are other reasons to densification close to the core (it is easier and cheaper to service with utilities, more sustainable, etc.) but transit might not be one of them. (in this particular case)
 
Agree with @AlvinofDiaspar - the transit issue is a red herring. The investment banker who buys a unit might not take the subway to work, but her nanny, her teenagers, her housekeeper and some of her visitors may in fact do so - these units are likely at the end of the day going to generate fewer car trips than a similar development further from higher-order transit. But the specifics of transit use from these particular units are beside the point. There is a principle here about appropriate intensification, and whether we have the will in this city to allow the development of a low-rise apartment building on the edge of a desirable community, where low-rise apartments already exist to the east and west of the site. The issue here is whether we can find a way to enable and facilitate appropriate intensification of this type, at locations and of a built-form that should otherwise should be considered low-hanging fruit, and if we do that there will be tremendous benefits, including improved modal splits, on a macro level.
 
WislaHD said:
You are assuming these people would be using transit. If they are moving into $2.5 million homes, then I am going to take a guess and say they can probably afford to drive. This intensification project is not adding transit users, it is likely adding dozens of cars into the streets.

There are other reasons to densification close to the core (it is easier and cheaper to service with utilities, more sustainable, etc.) but transit might not be one of them. (in this particular case)
Click to expand...

Second @Skeezix the issue isn't whether any of the new residents will use transit - which I don't really care about in this context - but the efficiency and appropriateness of having additional residents in land that is this close to the core in an area that is currently not dense at all. Which boils down to the ultimate point - those who are against the project isn't against it because the new residents won't use transit (which they likely don't give a hoot about) but that for whatever reason, they don't want to see additional residents in their area. Wrapping it in the transit argument is disingenuous.

AoD
 
WislaHD said:
You are assuming these people would be using transit. If they are moving into $2.5 million homes, then I am going to take a guess and say they can probably afford to drive. This intensification project is not adding transit users, it is likely adding dozens of cars into the streets.

There are other reasons to densification close to the core (it is easier and cheaper to service with utilities, more sustainable, etc.) but transit might not be one of them. (in this particular case)
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily a bad assumption -- lots of residents in wealthy neighbourhoods all over the city take public transit to work in the downtown core for a number of reasons.
 
ADRM said:
I don't think that's necessarily a bad assumption -- lots of residents in wealthy neighbourhoods all over the city take public transit to work in the downtown core for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

And, not our city, but because it's instructive of where our city should get to with regard to both its attitude towards public transit and the quality of the network, here's (Canuck) Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, riding the London Underground last week:

nintchdbpict000284343509.jpg

source
 
From The Star, at this link:

Residents concerned development will negatively impact heritage of Sunshine Valley

The houses are a warm reminder of a postwar Toronto, but some have struggled to stand the test of time over the last 70 years.

ci-heritagehomes4dec.jpg.size.custom.crop.850x642.jpg


Tucked away in a corner of East York, lies a quaint neighbourhood that, with its small wooden houses and manicured lawns, seems almost frozen in time.

The houses are a warm reminder of a postwar Toronto, but some have struggled to stand the test of time over the past 70 years. Should these homes — called charming by some, dilapidated by others — be protected?

Many of the houses that line the streets with such names as Valor Blvd., Warvet Cres. and Vicross Rd., were built in the 1940s for veterans coming home from the Second World War. And they share many of the same features: wooden framing, cladding, a steep roof, close to the sidewalk, with a separate garage in the backyard.

Some residents are concerned that new proposed developments for larger, modern houses will ruin the character of Sunshine Valley, a small enclave of the Topham Park neighbourhood, and want the area to be designated a Heritage Conservation District.

Designed by architect Bruce Haken Wright, the area is a distinct departure from Toronto’s grid subdivisions. The streets are laid out diagonally, with a grand boulevard with a central median, and four locations where houses stand around open green spaces. When they were first constructed in the 1940s, the 197 houses were staggered on the street in waves.

Last week, Ward 31 Councillor Janet Davis hosted a meeting attended by about 30 residents to discuss what options they have to try to stop the development of what she called “monster homes.”

Residents said they wanted more accountability and consistency from the Committee of Adjustment, which considers applications for minor variances on developments. Many raised concerns that some developments they consider to be “monster houses” are passing through the committee without serious consideration.

“We’re losing heritage buildings all the time,” an angered resident said.

Some residents also want the city to move ahead with the Heritage Conservation District study, which would determine whether the neighbourhood should receive the designation and the additional rules that consider characteristics of an area when it comes to new developments and upgrades.

“People tonight said we reject this model of development for our neighbourhood. They want to preserve green spaces and the smaller frame homes they chose when they moved here,” Davis said last week.

Although some houses in the neighbourhood that have been torn down and rebuilt still reflect the esthetic of the postwar homes, over the past several years, new developments in Sunshine Valley have been met with heavy skepticism and, in many cases, outright hostility.

Dave Duncan and his wife moved into a small, one-and-a-half storey home in Sunshine Valley seven years ago. When it was just the two of them, it suited them perfectly, but two kids and a dog later, the limited space was too much to handle. They decided to demolish and rebuild.

Duncan hired a local architect, who lives in Sunshine Valley, to design a home that would fit in with the neighbourhood. He met with concerned residents, showed them plans for his home, and still had letters submitted to the Committee of Adjustment over his development — including one letter from his city councillor, Davis.

“I found the process to be a lot less stressful and taxing than others have experienced, but part of that was we did a lot of ground work with our neighbours,” he said.

Duncan said although it’s important to maintain the character of the neighbourhood — something he went out of his way to do — the community needs to be realistic when it comes to development.

“I’m torn because one of the things we love is the character of the neighbourhood. But, on the other hand, if I buy a car, I can make it any colour I want. If I own property, I can put in a nice, modern house, if that’s what I really want.”

Duncan hopes the Sunshine Valley residents will be able to have a constructive conversation as more people move into the neighbourhood.

“I hope we can move forward as a community in a way that both respects the heritage but also respects the fact that development is a reality, and it’s not a bad thing.”

Aristotle Christou, a planning consultant, testified at the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) on behalf of the owner of 98 Squires Ave., who wanted to take down the existing property — a small home totalling less than 600 square feet — and build a substantially larger brick home.

Christou’s client’s requested variances were rejected because the mass of the house “would overwhelm its near neighbours and the adjacent neighbourhood and therefore would not ‘fit into the existing character.’ ”

Christou called the OMB decision “unfair” and dismissed the heritage value of the neighbourhood, saying that “because something is old and dilapidated, it does not automatically have to be preserved in perpetuity.”

“These are very inexpensive houses that were built to reflect the needs of the people of the time. People didn’t have cars, people didn’t have high expectations, they only had a need to house themselves,” Christou said. “Things have changed over the past several decades. People like to have a bit of luxury in their homes.”

He said new development and higher density homes are needed now more than ever because of Toronto’s housing crisis.

“If that designation goes through, there won’t be any changes and that is really detrimental for the renewal of an area where the houses are 90 years old,” Christou said. “This area needs renewal and reinvestment.”

When Clevys Monasterios first saw the cute house on Merritt Road 19 years ago, she fell in love with it. The house featured original details — glass door knobs, hardwood flooring, a cast iron bathtub that she adored, plenty of light, and a spacious backyard. It was the modest home she’d always wanted. She felt like she was in a small community, despite the fact that downtown Toronto is a relatively quick drive away.

Monasterios attended last week’s meeting because she wants to see what can be done to maintain the area’s charm/character.

“If we don’t pay attention, this charm is going to be lost,” Monasterios said. “It’s not that I’m against progress. There have been some changes that are great and really go with the neighbourhood, but now they are coming in with new kinds of construction that really don’t belong.”

She believes that going forward, new construction should be a compromise.

“It’s OK to build, but they should be respectful to the neighbourhood,” Monasterios said.

At the meeting last week, Davis and other city representatives explained how residents can engage in the planning process through the Committee of Adjustments and then the OMB.

“Neighbours have seen too many bad examples of inappropriate development,” she said.
Click to expand...
 
ADRM said:
I don't think that's necessarily a bad assumption -- lots of residents in wealthy neighbourhoods all over the city take public transit to work in the downtown core for a number of reasons.
Click to expand...

I haven't met too many. I've worked on a lot of homes in Rosedale, Forest Hill and Bridal Path over year the years. Most of the people i have dealt with in these neighborhoods, drive to work or have their own chauffeur. Some of them own private parking spots in the downtown core. If you can afford to live in Rosedale, you can afford a parking spot. The last guy i worked for, lived down the road from Rosedale station and he had his own chauffeur, chef, gardener, maid, dog walker, pool cleaner, and even his own pilot for his jet.
 
"Toronto parents are questioning why they weren’t consulted leading up to the city’s decision to open an overnight drop-in at a community centre adjacent to a downtown public school."

My God! How dare the city use a community centre to assist members of the community without first giving neighbourhood parents the opportunity to wail and go into hysterics! Community centres should be limited to uses such as macrame classes and registration for the local ringette league, not for helping the most disadvantaged members of the community.

I can only assume that these parents pay for the community centre themselves and, therefore, have a veto over its use. Otherwise why would they be making this fuss.​

"Campbell said what is upsetting people in the tight-knit and diverse neighbourhood is not the prospect of housing people in need, but the lack of information. 'My immediate concern is A, for my children, and B, for my community,' she said."

Bullsh*t.
​
"'The kids come first,' said Ahmed. 'We don’t have a problem with helping people.'"

People who don't have a problem with helping people don't run around creating issues and talking up problems with Toronto Star reporters.
​
"[W]ith this winter predicted to be colder than last, vulnerable people will need somewhere to go."

Not before a lengthy consultation process with local parents. The focus should be on pandering to the parents, not on keeping people from freezing to death on sidewalks.​
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top