http://www.imagehosting.us/imagehosting/showimg.jpg/?id=359220

Good as dead if City Council approves City Planners' reconmendations.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2005/agendas/committees/te/te050705/it011.pdf

What a shame.

That was a solid building they had proposed.

I know.

I predict it comes back in a 25 storey version.

^^A building like that would not make such a strong statement as a 45s would. I don't know why the city would reject this tower Jarvis St. needs something like this, and what else better than a beautiful Clewes tower.

What the hell? I was looking forward to this one...anything shorter would not be good

The planners were probably looking for something shorter, bulkier, and less dense because it is wrong for a skyscraper like this to stand out from the crowd.

Very stupid. Jarvis is close enought to yonge to warrant such as high density project. Really stupid, reminds me in reverse of this friday's flight into Toronto, I saw a new subdivision (must have been either Mississauga or Brampton) surronded by forest, had around 300 detachted dwellings, with a new 30 something storey condo right at the back of it being built. A couple of acres of forest later, there was another condo built, with absolutely nothing around but forest.

I think the former metro plan that they are referring to, should be amended to favor midrises on the other side of the DV Parkway, in that area, and allow highrises.

If it was approved, would it still look like a box? Or was that just a preliminary sketch?

What's all this bullshit about "transitioning", "stepping down" into "lower density" residential areas????

Everything south of Bloor, and from Jarvis over to bay is high density....there's nothing to step down to....it's all scattered highrises right to the fuking lake fer christ's sake.

That's not the reason...they are just making this shit up. And they want more power to pass this kind of crap??? Not if I can help it....they turn down this great building, and approve some boring crap right behind it???

No wonder there's a OMB, to kick some sense into city politicians when they cow-tow to NIMBY's......and yes, it IS THE NIMBYs....there's no stepping down and transitioning here at all....and the "official" densities and heights have always been worthless...otherwise, downtown Toronto would be nothing but 3 story buildings.






KGB

So they reject that, but allow other swill to go up?

Maybe they should build a strip mall instead, you know, a cheap one storey structure with a sea of parking in front. I bet some NIMBY wackos would actually think that would be a better alternative, I shouldn't give them any ideas.

picture plz?

its fine that theyre rejecting it. Not everybody wants skyscrapers built in their neighborhood. Just because u want to live near downtown doesnt mean u want ure neighborhood PACKED with people. A shorter building will be fine. The tall one wasnt much to look at anyhow.

"Just because u want to live near downtown doesnt mean u want ure neighborhood PACKED with people."


Well, this isn't "near" downtown...it's RIGHT downtown....and it's already packed with people...and the city's plan to accomodate many more people is to densify the areas that are appropriate to do so...which this is.






"A shorter building will be fine. The tall one wasnt much to look at anyhow."


I can live with density maximums...I can live with height restrictions based on context and shadow issues...those are reasonable situations which need addressing. But as far as architecture, this one seems to be on target to not just be something to look at, but perhaps one the best modern residential highrises in the city. This sort of Miesian style relies heavily on proportions...and a squat version simply would fail the architecture.





And if this approved 37-storey tower right beside it was supposed to follow this "stepped-down" approach, then why is it significantly taller than the one directly north of it?

Sorry, but the precident for this area has long been established...large victorian houses origionally, then turn of the century walk-up apartments, then larger 1920's deco apartments, followed by 1950's and 1960's highrise apartments, followed by recent highrise condos....all mixed in together....and you know what....it works....I actually like it.

It seems the city wants to put on paper, a plan which works, but has a problem when it comes time to actually impliment it...that's why you can't build tall point towers on top of subway stations, where highrises are already appropriate at Yonge & Eglinton, and we can't build highrises at Bloor & Jarvis, where it's downtown and already appropriate for them.

So, if the city can't manage to approve them where they are the most appropriate...where the hell ARE they supposed to go?





KGB

if you want to live downtown and you don't want your neighbourhood packed with people then don't live downtown. torontonians really have to stop thinking of their city as one big subdivision. it is a major metropolis.

imagine a new yorker complaining about a friggin' shadow on his property or too many people in his area. he'd get a slap off the back of the head.

for godssakes, this building is right on the (very very limited) subway line. put the people where the REAL transit is and they will take transit. and when i say REAL, i'm not talking the bus or streetcar. buses get held up in traffic and streetcars travel in packs like wolves - nothing for a half hour then six at a time.

and let's be honest, it's winter most of the time here. no one wants to stand in a bus shelter with the wind whipping around them, but let them go underground and it's a whole different story.

man, whenver i think of how bad transit is here i get really pissed. get rid of the streetcar and all it's horrible, ugly, criss-crossing wires and put a subway along queen, college, st. clair, bathurst, donlands, eglinton, (finish the) sheppard, extend the yonge line to steeles, the university line to the airport!!!, and build a line across steeles. oh, and get rid of tokens and tickets and put in a refillable swipe card! then and only then will it make sense for people to take transit.

Is this is being rejected because of the kafuffle over the current building; the city's attempt to appease OCAP? Does this type of tower (and its height)represent a slap in the face to low-income residents?

:(

"Is this is being rejected because of the kafuffle over the current building; the city's attempt to appease OCAP? Does this type of tower (and its height)represent a slap in the face to low-income residents? "


Well, because the "official" excuse sounds suspect to me, I think it's highly likely this is politically motivated....just a victim of the city pretending to not be too pro-highrise.









"imagine a new yorker complaining about a friggin' shadow on his property or too many people in his area. he'd get a slap off the back of the head."


Well, NYC has some pretty serious planning problems associated with what it has been doing for a very long time, and really can't be fixed anyway, hence no point in trying to change it...they just adapt and live with it...we, on the other hand, (Toronto that is), have been doing our best to avoid as much of those problems, while maintaining the benifits. So, there's nothing wrong in general with the planning principals...they are there for a reason, and do need to be adhered to for the long run.

But shadows are not as bad as people imagine...especially for the "low density" structures. Ya know why? Ever take a look at those little streets that run through that area...notice anything they all seem to have in common? And that thing they all seem to have in common are always thought of as a very good thing....they provide clean air, make our properties and streets look nice and greatly increase the value of our real estate, they greatly reduce the amount of air-conditioning we have to use.

....and they also cause a lot of shade. Yea...trees. It doesn't matter about the streets and smaller structures that may lie within the shadow of a larger building, because the trees already cause more shade than they do....a shadow on top of another shadow doesn't make it any more shadowed...does it?

Ok...this only matters when those trees have leaves on them...but you get the point.








"streetcars travel in packs like wolves - nothing for a half hour then six at a time. man, whenver i think of how bad transit is here i get really pissed. get rid of the streetcar and all it's horrible, ugly, criss-crossing wires"


Well, this thread isn't about transit...you might try focusing a little more on the topic. But since you brought it up, i can tell you are not likely an actual streetcar user...I live on two lines and use them daily, and I can assure you, they are fantastic. In fact, most downtowners will tell you they love their streetcars...not just because they perform a specific service, and do it very well....but because people just love using them...easily the most civilized and exceptable, enjoyable form of public transit...even seeing them and listening to them is great...you don't even have to use them to enjoy them.







KGB

And I don't see where anyone can classify that area as "low density" either. Do you know what the population is in that very narrow corridor between Yonge and Jarvis, south of Bloor is....22,000 people...and that was in May of 2001...a lot more have, or will be moving into the many condo buildings built, u/c, or approved to be built.

I can understand not ripping down existing victorian homes to put up highrises...but the parking lots and other empty spaces available can, and should support highrises...they are already the dominant housing unit, accounting for almost 90% of all units ( 5 floors or more).





KGB

That's one of the better designs we've had here in many a year. Why couldn't they have rejected some of the other homogeneous shit instead?

this tower is phenominal,maybe they just want the developer to sweat a little and
have them cough up some more cash to get it approved?

What a shame...what in the world was the city's excuse to let go a building like this....Jarvis could defintely use this 45-floor high-rise. It's a very appealing structure. It makes me wonder what makes them say no to a building that is in perfect height and shouldn't cause any shadowing issues...it's perfect for that neighbourhood...what the hell is the city thinking...When will Toronto learn!!!!!!?????????

Toronto is stuck in a downward spiral. It has been for over 15 years now.

Really? Even though the city is experiencing massive condo developments elsewhere?

"Well, this thread isn't about transit...you might try focusing a little more on the topic."

yeah, my bad. but my transit rant came out of the fact that a 45 storey building on a transit line was rejected.


"i can tell you are not likely an actual streetcar user"

i was. but i was constantly frustrated by them. and for much of the year freezing my ass off waiting for them.

"I live on two lines and use them daily, and I can assure you, they are fantastic."

great.

"In fact, most downtowners will tell you they love their streetcars...not just because they perform a specific service, and do it very well....but because people just love using them"

thanks KGB for telling us what "most" people think. i try to stick to what i think. and i agree that streetcars are civilized and beautiful to look at, but tourists with cameras aside, this isn't san fran. this is toronto. cold from september (possibly) to mid-may (possibly). waiting outdoors + cold = sucks.

all i'm saying is that if torontonians had more subway lines then more people would take transit. politicians will tell you that if a bus goes through a neighbourhood that the neighbourhood is serviced by transit. the only people that will take that bus will be people who have to take it due to economic reasons. poor people who don't have cars. if you want the middle class and up to leave their vehicles at home then you have to give them subways that actually go places. i stand by my list of needed subway lines...

"queen, college, st. clair, bathurst, donlands, eglinton, (finish the) sheppard, extend the yonge line to steeles, the university line to the airport!!!, and build a line across steeles."

we need to grid the city with subways the way london, new york and chicago (among other major cities) are gridded or we will never alter the car culture that prevails in our city.

and to bring it back to this thread, if toronto isn't going to build more subway lines then there should be near zero height restrictions along subway corridors. put as many people as you can where the REAL transit is. i'm sick of watching a perfectly beautiful building being rolled back from say 52 to 46 stories so satisfy some citizen who bought a house along yonge street in 1954 and is worried about their neighbourhood. sorry buddy, but your neighbourhood has moved on and maybe so should you.

In my humble opinion this looksto be one of if not the best designed condo of the recent boom over the last few years - a true shame.

I actually live in the neighbourhood and my view of the downtown skyline would be directly blocked by the tower - but it makes no difference if it's 30s or 45s, so why the view blocking complaints - the tower should have been approved.

This is especially ridiculous since Bloor Walk II is approved at 37s on the site directly to the north and the CASA condo just down the street on Charles between Yonge and Church is in preview sales right now at 45 stories.

CASA is the same height and is a hop, skip and a jump away.

I've been keeping quiet but KGB, MikeinTo, victoryman all make some truly truly excellent points. I can't add anything that has not already been said.

In my humble opinion this looksto be one of if not the best designed condo of the recent boom over the last few years - a true shame.

I actually live in the neighbourhood and my view of the downtown skyline would be directly blocked by the tower - but it makes no difference if it's 30s or 45s, so why the view blocking complaints - the tower should have been approved.

This is especially ridiculous since Bloor Walk II is approved at 37s on the site directly to the north and the CASA condo just down the street on Charles between Yonge and Church is in preview sales right now at 45 stories.

CASA is the same height and is a hop, skip and a jump away.
^because of that im sure this tower will be pushed through!

Well.... not exactly the best news but it's a start

The Toronto and East York Community Council:
(1) referred the report (June 20, 2005) from the Director, Community Planning, South
District back to the Director;
(2) requested the Director, Community Planning, South District to report to the
September 19, 2005 meeting of the Toronto and East York Community Council
meeting with a further report after having reconsidered his position and after
having considered other options; and, in consultation with appropriate City staff,
include recommendations on recommended Section 37 benefits.

----
It appears that community council was not happy at the planners and their bullshit reasons for rejecting this tower. It also looks like they are want a bigger payout if the tower is to proceed. The planning department in Toronto is a joke; It might as well be renamed the Extort Money From Developers Department. I also wonder what role OCAP played in this since they were threatening to take over the existing building on the site.

If this wasn't a city-owned property, we wouldn't be having this conversation.





KGB

...maybe it could be located in another Jarvis area lot? Sounds silly, but they could do impact and shadow (and other) studies on other lots perhaps?

^ Something tells me that's not the real issue at hand.

Of course it isn't...the city is in a bad position here...selling property that is a political hot potatoe revolving around the housing and poverty issue, being turned into designer condos. Of course they are going to try and be as sensitive as possible on this one to attempt to disarm the NIMBY and OCAP issues. That's what City Hall does...dance around everything to try and piss off the least amount of people.

This one had "issue" written all over it. The city needs to offload surplus property and make as much money as possible, but unlike other less visable people, they have to go about it very carefully. The developer should have known this in the first place...there are similar sites like this all over the place...why they would choose to get involved with this one is sorta dumb....it was a guaranteed headache.






KGB

I found this to be intresting...

Re: Social Services

The party line is that council won't rob existing programs in well-served neighbourhoods to close the gaps in others. Few believe that. Everyone knows the city's fiscal straitjacket. There won't be enough money to fix everything.

In fact, the downtown councillors have evolved a system of, according to one councillor, "extorting" money from developers to provide community space and services. That is how they have managed to compile such a good safety net despite the budget cutbacks of the past decade.


full article...

A councillor learns the city hall hustle


ROYSON JAMES

Councillor Mike Del Grande is like a buzzing mosquito near the ear of city council. And the annoying song the first-time councillor sings is this: Scarborough is the forgotten corner of the megacity.

The amalgamated Toronto that was supposed to distribute services across the city, based on clear need, continues to pump money into the downtown while citizens who are just as needy languish in the suburbs.

Del Grande represents Scarborough-Agincourt, a ward where residents have not mastered the game of how to access city hall, fight for scarce resources and advocate for dollars. The rookie councillor is scrappy, if not immediately effective.

Recently, the city's community services department made available $400,000 in grants for services to Mandarin-speaking communities. Del Grande says most of the money will go downtown, as always.

Scarborough has almost half of the Mandarin-speaking families in the city but last year received just 20 per cent of the grant money to support social services to those residents, he said. South District, essentially the old city of Toronto, received 71 per cent for a quarter of the Mandarin-speaking population.

Anticipating a repeat of last year, Del Grande has demanded a clear accounting of where the city's social service dollars are spent, including the trend line since amalgamation.

Scarborough's community council supported his motion and it has been sent to staff for report by Sept. 20.

Del Grande's claims bear watching, in light of a United Way report that shows the city's poorest neighbourhoods, like Moss Park, Regent Park and St. James Town, are not necessarily the ones with the greatest need for social services.

In fact, one of Del Grande's neighbourhoods — from McNicoll to Steeles Aves. and Warden Ave. to Kennedy Rd. — has a family income almost four times that of Moss Park but very few services. Residents might have to hop two or more buses to access employment, recreation and immigrant settlement services.

The United Way report recommends that the nine needy neighbourhoods with the greatest gaps in services, almost all in the suburbs and most in Scarborough, should be granted priority status.

That, of course, could mean less money for other inner-city neighbourhoods, even ones with a lot more income-poor people than the service-poor areas. Or longer waits for amenities like recreation centres.

Councillor Frances Nunziata only last year got city council to approve a community centre at Eglinton and Black Creek — despite unanimous consent that the old city of York, where she was the pre-amalgamation mayor, was the worst-served community and had zero community centres.

It took the new city six years to approve the budget and Nunziata says no new priority list should retroactively alter it.

Other councillors, adept at wringing concessions out of city hall for their neighbourhoods, are fretting, quietly so far, over what they fear may be a drying up of funds as the city fills the gaps in the suburbs.

Councillor Howard Moscoe, as always, gives a blunt assessment from the perspective of Lawrence Heights, a needy but well-serviced neighbourhood at Lawrence Ave. and Allen Rd.

"I'm getting cut off from the gravy train. I don't like that," he said. "Now, every councillor with a non-designated neighbourhood is going to have to scramble for funding."

Scramble is what Moscoe does best, so the areas he represents will survive. Lawrence Heights, for example, has many agencies and supports to keep a lid on potential social eruptions.

It is the councillors less adept at working the system whose wards would be threatened.

The party line is that council won't rob existing programs in well-served neighbourhoods to close the gaps in others. Few believe that. Everyone knows the city's fiscal straitjacket. There won't be enough money to fix everything.

In fact, the downtown councillors have evolved a system of, according to one councillor, "extorting" money from developers to provide community space and services. That is how they have managed to compile such a good safety net despite the budget cutbacks of the past decade.

It's this resiliency that might save the United Way's recommendations. The mayor and city council's progressives will argue that the suburban neighbourhoods must be brought up to par and soon, or the outcomes and costs will be catastrophic. There will be loud objections, but that view will triumph.

But here's a wager. Return in a decade and the inner-city neighbourhoods will still have more services than the 'burbs, despite real needs. It's a product of active, engaged, politically smart and plugged-in residents combined with the scrappy, proactive, ingenious, and most always left-leaning councillors who represent the inner-city neighbourhoods.

Suburban councillors like Del Grande would do best to study the methods of the flamboyant Moscoe, the understated Olivia Chow and the power broker Joe Pantalone — councillors whose wards will never show up on a list of service-poor areas.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Royson James usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Email: rjames@thestar.ca

Additional articles by Royson James

What a shame... this would have been a great addition to the burgeoning upper downtown Toronto area of Yonge/Bloor.

:(