Toronto St Lawrence Condos at 158 Front | 91.44m | 26s | Cityzen | a—A

The city doesn't "need" anything. I don't know why you continue to insist that it does. I don't think you can interchange "city" with "BuildTO" as you do either. The city may own BuildTO but, like any crown corp., it has its own agenda and autonomy. To also suggest that developers will uproot if the city doesn't play fair is naive. The city is boss and not the other way around. As long as there is demand for condos, land speculators will continue to sign land leases with the city as private deals aren't any less co-operative.


There is a lot of speculation on the real estate side knowing, the insatiable demand for new condos, the pro development planning department and its appeals division. There have been a number of experienced land speculators associated to big developers that didn't make out like they thought they would over this elongated boom. You cut your losses and move on.
 
Last edited:
Realistically, this is not a big deal, like every other project in the city there is always some sort of dispute over height and density.

yawn
 
And no one from BuildTO is showing up in the planning department and telling the planners: "you have to approve this building at this height and density because we sold it to them for this much". You buy your lot, you take your chances.
 
AG:

Yeah i agree, I would say 95% of all mid/hi-rise tower proposals at Toronto city planning go through excessive height scrutiny...same old broken record
Click to expand...

They have to play by the rules regardless of the merit of said rules - it's part of the process.

Hate to go personal with this, but I have a feeling 95% of your postings on here qualifies as the "same old broken record" you alluded to - and unlike the planning department, you have no mandated rationale for doing so.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
AG:



They have to play by the rules regardless of the merit of said rules - it's part of the process.

Hate to go personal with this, but I have a feeling 95% of your postings on here qualifies as the "same old broken record" you alluded to - and unlike the planning department, you have no mandated rationale for doing so.

AoD
Click to expand...

Yeah sorry, i forget i should remember to keep my trap shut when mentioning anything regarding city planning.
 
Last edited:
The developers applied to the Committee of Adjustment for a 2-year parking lot on the site. New surface parking lots are explicitly forbidden in King-Parliamnent but, despite strong opposition from the City planners and the Neighbourhood Association, the C of A approved the request yesterday.
 
Good....hope the NIMBYs enjoy their new parking lot...
 
Actually having a parking lot there wouldn't be that different from what was there now in any case. At least it gives breathing room to seriously consider what a good development for the site would look like.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually having a parking lot there wouldn't be that different from what was there now in any case. At least it gives breathing room to seriously consider what a good development for the site would look like.

AoD
Click to expand...

If the developers had shown the slightest inclination to talk (or even listen) to the neighbours, the planners and the local Councillor I would agree with you but, to date anyway, they have gone full-steam ahead. Everybody wants a building on the site, the problem is the current building simply does not fit into the neighbourhood or offer anything to anybody (except, I assume, a profit to Ciyyzen.
 
DSC said:
the problem is the current building simply does not fit into the neighbourhood or offer anything to anybody (except, I assume, a profit to Ciyyzen.
Click to expand...

I dont know about that...if they had a vote for this, it probably would be a split. I believe, like every other proposal in that neighbourhood, its the same bunch stirring the pot.
 
^^^ come on dude, give up on these dogmatic and ideologically based comments. Just because local residents care more about what is built in their neighbourhood than you do does not make them "trouble makers". The design sucked. People noticed and they spoke up. Democracy is a beautiful thing when it works.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I dont know about that...if they had a vote for this, it probably would be a split. I believe, like every other proposal in that neighbourhood, its the same bunch stirring the pot.
Click to expand...

There was an official City neighbourhood consultation meeting last week - about 150 people were there - not one speaker supported the developer's current plans and they are not supported by the St Lawrence Neighbourhood Association either. Of course there must be some people who live in the area who support the development but they are certainly not very vocal but if there had been a vote last week it would certainly have "failed".
 
Redroom Studios said:
^^^ come on dude, give up on these dogmatic and ideologically based comments. Just because local residents care more about what is built in their neighbourhood than you do does not make them "trouble makers". The design sucked. People noticed and they spoke up. Democracy is a beautiful thing when it works.
Click to expand...

LOL another case of NIMBYism in Toronto. How is a process democratic when the only individuals involved in the process have a personal interest and therefore a bias in the nature of the proposed project? That's not the "voice of the neighbourhood" that's not democracy. The only people who get involved are the ones who are pissed off...and that godforsaken councilor in my ward has been playing "simon says" for the same complaining douchebags in my neighbourhood for years just so she can stick around.

People don't care about design, they just worry about their views being blocked, and a slightly longer lineup at No Frills...that's the nature of living in a city.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top