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

Platform 27 said:
The Bulletin has a very The Bulletinish story up about how that community meeting ended up going. Spoiler alert: residents fear the invasion of DOOOOOOOGS.
Click to expand...

Holy NIMBYism. Baffling and odd in its ferocity. One person apparently said "We should not be destroying the very heritage we have here," which is a great sentiment in general, except that in this case the existing property is a hideous decaying concrete bunker. The facility in general adds nothing to the area except ugliness and the dangerous traffic of large buses turning in and out. The depot no longer needs to be in this transforming residential neighbourhood.

While I'm all for ensuring that developments are family-friendly and respectful of their surrounds, I can only see this proposed building as being a plus for the area. Nearby highrise developments like Pure Spirits and East Lofts have only increased the number of families with children in small strollers in the area. Similarly, residents have these new condos to thank for the improving amenities nearby such as the No Frills.

The negativity described in this article sounds ridiculous, a meeting of crackpots.
 
Last edited:
Reading that article was certainly depressing. It's a shame when a rabble like that comandeers an important meeting that was meant to work with people concerns.
That type of ignorant 'NIMBY' behavior deserves to be punished. I have no sympathy for their concerns after that display. Hopefully the folks that make the final decisions feel the same.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Gee, sounds like there will be a lot of opposition towards this development.:confused::D
Click to expand...

But the first two meetings were very positive towards the project. My guess is that this meeting was hijacked by the NIMBYs. Most probably a small number of NIMBYs spread the word to other like-minded people, and they collectively gate-crashed this meeting, overwhelming the more representative (but much less organized) people who have a positive attitude toward this project, by sheer numbers.
 
I stopped reading when I read "ugliest building in Toronto".

This building will do far more for the community than that awful looking Greyhound outpost.
 
Mongo said:
But the first two meetings were very positive towards the project. My guess is that this meeting was hijacked by the NIMBYs. Most probably a small number of NIMBYs spread the word to other like-minded people, and they collectively gate-crashed this meeting, overwhelming the more representative (but much less organized) people who have a positive attitude toward this project, by sheer numbers.
Click to expand...

I was actually present at all three meetings and it should be noted that the first two were "invitation only' meetings arranged by the developer. The meeting described by the Bulletin was the first (but probably not the last) City-organised statutory meeting. It is not just NIMBYs who object to the proposal: the City planners have several major objections to it and I think it far to say that at the City meeting many people quite liked the design but did not like it for THAT site. The proposal is for 34 floors in an area zoned for 12-15 and several speakers questioned why the developer bought the site knowing the height/density allowed and then proposed to GREATLY exceed it.

The proposal was also discussed recently by the Design Review Panel and they were of a very similar mind; a pretty decent design for another site. They voted to send it back to the drawing board.

Granny says
"Hopefully the folks that make the final decisions feel the same.
Click to expand...
This may well go to the OMB for a decision but I think the City Planning Department and the Design Review Panel actually support the majority of people at the meeting who certainly agreed that the current use of the site is not good and hope the developer can come back with something better. Personally I look forward to seeing a re-design and hope that the developeers and architects will try again - their plan has some very nice features.
 
DSC said:
I look forward to seeing a re-design and hope that the developeers and architects will try again - their plan has some very nice features.
Click to expand...
But surely those features are largely a part of the actual proposed design -- I sure hope they don't just shrink the current design by half and call it a day. If the site won't support 34 floors, let's have a completely different building, one that works in this setting.
 
CanadianNational said:
Heritage? In order to respect that, the area would have to be parking lots, gas tanks, foundries and sheds, with a train running down the middle of the Esplanade!
Click to expand...

Actually the area bounded by Parliament/George/Front/Adelaide is the original 10 blocks of the Town of York. As Wikipedia says: "The Old Town of York was laid out in ten original blocks between today's Adelaide and Front streets (the later following the shoreline) with the first church (St James Anglican), Town Hall and Wharf (named St Lawrence after the river) on the west and the first parliament buildings, blockhouse and windmill on the east. All land south of Lot Street (now Queen Street) was reserved for expansion of the Town or Fort by the government as 'the Commons'. North of Lot Street began the rural Township of York (divided into large 'park lots') which only slowly emerged from the natural forest."

While the Greyhound Building is certainly not historic (and nor was its predecessor a TTC freight building) the SITE is certainly historic.
 
The first time i completely disagree with the residents of the neighborhood. 34 floors might be too much but to expect any new development to be 10-15 floors is ridiculous. 25 floors is probably more appropriate.

"While one person raised the concern that high-rises are death traps when the power shuts off, and another claimed that residential buildings means more dogs, ”territorial creatures” that are destroyers of gardens and sidewalks,"
This is the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard.
 
I really hope this will still go through as planned. The buildings are awesome.

As for dogs... well they have made it so sitting or laying on grass is not the safest thing to do anymore.
 
Thanos said:
"While one person raised the concern that high-rises are death traps when the power shuts off, and another claimed that residential buildings means more dogs, ”territorial creatures” that are destroyers of gardens and sidewalks," This is the most ridiculous comment I've ever heard.
Click to expand...
Most people at the meeting would have agreed with you and certainly not all participants made valid (or even relevant) points. In fact, a bit like Urban Toronto :->
 
khristopher said:
I really hope this will still go through as planned. The buildings are awesome.

As for dogs... well they have made it so sitting or laying on grass is not the safest thing to do anymore.
Click to expand...

I believe it is the irresponsible dog owners who make grass-sitting unsafe and unsavory. Let's leave the innocent canines out of this.
 
It's unfortunate that the community hastily and ignorantly gang-bashed this development for all the wrong reasons.
The neighborhood as it is, is rather gritty and lacking in life. Any kind of development would improve this area and they should be lucky enough to have a sophisticated attractive building. If the residents want depressing, lifeless, aging buildings that hinder the vitality of the neighborhood, than that's is what they deserve.
 
I think that neighbourhood is pretty awesome myself. Not gritty at all. Lots of nice new mid-rise condos, and great restaurants and bars/cafes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top