Viva Towns (19-41 Mill St) | 4 + 3fl | U/C

[Spokes]

While my instinct is to say, NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, the massing does feel a bit chunky for this location.

Right Now.

I think however in 20 years it would fit in perfectly with how this part of DTK will scale. So get started

[danbrotherston]

While my instinct is to say, NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, the massing does feel a bit chunky for this location.

Right Now.

I think however in 20 years it would fit in perfectly with how this part of DTK will scale. So get started

Why do you feel that it's a bit chunky?

The other side of queen (like 50 meters away) has the gigantic Drewlo Iron Horse Tower.

[tomh009]

While my instinct is to say, NIMBYs gonna NIMBY, the massing does feel a bit chunky for this location.

Right Now.

I think however in 20 years it would fit in perfectly with how this part of DTK will scale. So get started

Why do you feel that it's a bit chunky?

The other side of queen (like 50 meters away) has the gigantic Drewlo Iron Horse Tower.

And a second (even taller) tower is proposed for the other side of IHT (at the former Nougat location).

[Joedelay Highhoe]

About 11 of the apartments in the subdivided houses along there that were to be demolished are considered to be affordable housing, but in Polocorp's plan they only offered to make 5 of the units as affordable.

Where were these concerned neighbours from?

I know one guy quoted in the article from the "Neighborhood Association" lives on Pequegnat. Not sure why he's working to stop development on Mill St. I guess retirement must be boring?

[danbrotherston]

Where were these concerned neighbours from?

I know one guy quoted in the article from the "Neighborhood Association" lives on Pequegnat. Not sure why he's working to stop development on Mill St. I guess retirement must be boring?

That's on the opposite side of the city! So wait...which neighbourhood association is he from?

Yeah...honestly, these folks are self defeating. You could argue there are reasonable objections that could be raised, but the reliability which certain groups oppose ANY development whatsoever makes it impossible to take ANY objections seriously, it's easy to dismiss them all, because they're usually anti-progress bullshit.

Assholes like that harm ALL of our ability to raise legitimate issues. So even if you don't care about affordable housing, or any serious issues, and just want front porches or something like that (a legitimate, but in my opinion minor objection), he's still screwing us over.

[dtkvictim]

I know one guy quoted in the article from the "Neighborhood Association" lives on Pequegnat. Not sure why he's working to stop development on Mill St. I guess retirement must be boring?

That's on the opposite side of the city! So wait...which neighbourhood association is he from?

Yeah...honestly, these folks are self defeating. You could argue there are reasonable objections that could be raised, but the reliability which certain groups oppose ANY development whatsoever makes it impossible to take ANY objections seriously, it's easy to dismiss them all, because they're usually anti-progress bullshit.

Assholes like that harm ALL of our ability to raise legitimate issues. So even if you don't care about affordable housing, or any serious issues, and just want front porches or something like that (a legitimate, but in my opinion minor objection), he's still screwing us over.

First of all, I want to agree with you and the general sentiment of this thread. 1) I don't believe the use of this land is in the purview of anyone but the property owner, and the city to make judgements based on infrastructure capabilities. This is despite the fact I don't really like this building. 2) It's hard to imagine any showstopping complaints against this development even if neighbourhood feedback is taken into consideration...

With that said, I want to call you out on "anti-progress". I think it's a unfair term used to put down and build public resentment towards those you disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, progress is subjective. It suggests a goal with measurable progress, and the reality is there is no such "goal" to life, humanity, society, etc... Your personal goal(s) have been built up layer by layer over the course of your life, and your circumstances may have built up a very different idea of progress from other individuals. On top of that, it's extremely difficult for us to go back and reflect upon each layer, one at a time, and see if the foundations even hold true. I try to do it, but it's hard to admit when we are wrong, and it's even harder to propagate a fundamental change throughout the outer layers because we aren't computers.

Basically, the older I get, the more times I've experienced being wrong, to the point that I'll never consider my ideas (such as what progress is) to be uniquely correct. There seems to be the notion in our current political climate that all change is progress, and I don't think it's fair to label those who disagree as anti-progress.

[danbrotherston]

That's on the opposite side of the city! So wait...which neighbourhood association is he from?

Yeah...honestly, these folks are self defeating. You could argue there are reasonable objections that could be raised, but the reliability which certain groups oppose ANY development whatsoever makes it impossible to take ANY objections seriously, it's easy to dismiss them all, because they're usually anti-progress bullshit.

Assholes like that harm ALL of our ability to raise legitimate issues. So even if you don't care about affordable housing, or any serious issues, and just want front porches or something like that (a legitimate, but in my opinion minor objection), he's still screwing us over.

First of all, I want to agree with you and the general sentiment of this thread. 1) I don't believe the use of this land is in the purview of anyone but the property owner, and the city to make judgements based on infrastructure capabilities. This is despite the fact I don't really like this building. 2) It's hard to imagine any showstopping complaints against this development even if neighbourhood feedback is taken into consideration...

With that said, I want to call you out on "anti-progress". I think it's a unfair term used to put down and build public resentment towards those you disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, progress is subjective. It suggests a goal with measurable progress, and the reality is there is no such "goal" to life, humanity, society, etc... Your personal goal(s) have been built up layer by layer over the course of your life, and your circumstances may have built up a very different idea of progress from other individuals. On top of that, it's extremely difficult for us to go back and reflect upon each layer, one at a time, and see if the foundations even hold true. I try to do it, but it's hard to admit when we are wrong, and it's even harder to propagate a fundamental change throughout the outer layers because we aren't computers.

Basically, the older I get, the more times I've experienced being wrong, to the point that I'll never consider my ideas (such as what progress is) to be uniquely correct. There seems to be the notion in our current political climate that all change is progress, and I don't think it's fair to label those who disagree as anti-progress.

Would you prefer if I used the word anti-change? The problem I see is that these folks would be upset about anything they perceive as a change to their neighbourhood.

As for whether putting people down like this is productive, it probably isn't, but I also don't think coddling them helps. Probably we just need to refocus things on the need for housing, and ignore the anti-change folks.

By the way, you have no idea how old I am (nor I you), I've also experienced being wrong plenty (I have literally been wrong about this before). But I also know exactly what to think about NIMBYs during a housing crisis. There is a lot I don't agree with how development is going on in the city (I think we should have a LOT more 3-6 storey developments, and then there'd be less need to focus on larger developments), but ultimately, I want to see as much housing built as sustainably as possible as quickly as possible, IMO we're beyond the point where we can realistically be choosy about what we get. We're seeing the price of homes rise 10% per month...that doesn't have a good outcome.

[nms]

"Anti-progress" and "Anti-change" suggests that there is no room for negotiation when a project is proposed. I understand that when a developer pitches an idea to City staff that there is an awful lot of boring background back-and-forth that happens before the project becomes public. The challenge for others in the neighbourhood is that when the project is revealed, they are presented with a "once and done" proposal, often with variance requests that rankle the neighbourhood as they watch hard fought for rules and guidelines get nibbled away. The rule and guidelines likely came from public consultation processes that these very same neighbours may have had a hand in drafting.

Every building in the Region is the result of "progress" and "change". Viewed several decades (or even a century) after construction, there have been hits and misses. There have also been civic or developer visions that were either still-born or didn't get far past the pilot stage before they stopped for any number of reasons. Can those who are called "anti-progress" or "anti-change" be faulted if they observe that a proposed project appears to replicate some of the failures of the past, or worse yet, create a new problem that no one has seen yet? It also important to remember that there is no homogenous vision for what the perfect urban form is. (We don't have Napoleon III and Georges-Eugène Haussman to wipe the slate clean and start over as they did in Paris in the mid-1800s)

I think that Polocorp has done a good job to come up with a compromise that uses the land and salvages some of their investment.

[danbrotherston]

"Anti-progress" and "Anti-change" suggests that there is no room for negotiation when a project is proposed. I understand that when a developer pitches an idea to City staff that there is an awful lot of boring background back-and-forth that happens before the project becomes public.  The challenge for others in the neighbourhood is that when the project is revealed, they are presented with a "once and done" proposal, often with variance requests that rankle the neighbourhood as they watch hard fought for rules and guidelines get nibbled away.  The rule and guidelines likely came from public consultation processes that these very same neighbours may have had a hand in drafting. 

Every building in the Region is the result of "progress" and "change".  Viewed several decades (or even a century) after construction, there have been hits and misses.  There have also been civic or developer visions that were either still-born or didn't get far past the pilot stage before they stopped for any number of reasons.  Can those who are called "anti-progress" or "anti-change" be faulted if they observe that a proposed project appears to replicate some of the failures of the past, or worse yet, create a new problem that no one has seen yet? It also important to remember that there is no homogenous vision for what the perfect urban form is. (We don't have Napoleon III and Georges-Eugène Haussman to wipe the slate clean and start over as they did in Paris in the mid-1800s)

I think that Polocorp has done a good job to come up with a compromise that uses the land and salvages some of their investment.

Lol...wow...you're an optimist.  We have folks protesting buildings which don't even require a zoning variance, they didn't know about the zoning. I'll eat my hat if the average NIMBY was involved in the zoning planning process.  They certainly don't understand it, because zoning variances and bonusing are part of the zoning process, they're baked in.

"Every building in the Region is the result of "progress" and "change""...

I was very specific with my words. People don't always perceive change, for example, if things are moving slowly, they won't notice (climate change comes to mind). They also don't perceive change if that change does not modify qualities they consider important. So if you replace a house, with a house, or a multi-unit home with a town home or something, chances are good, people won't object because you aren't qualitatively changing the things they care about. Sometimes they do, see the mcmansion nonsense in Toronto, but usually they don't care. But an apartment building, that's a scary new thing, and people get upset.

Now, I'm not trying to dictate anything about urban form. ALL I want to achieve is more housing. That is the ONLY goal I have left at this point, we are in an absolute crisis, and the only way through is more housing. And we are nowhere NEAR that goal. We need something like 10,000 homes per year built just to meet projected growth. We aren't even close. So, how do I feel about Polocorps decision. I guess they're not demolishing everything and leaving it an empty lot so that's good, but the townhome development with zero affordable housing is worse than what was there in terms of affordable housing, and only marginally better in total housing stock.

What I see is a group of people, who apparently don't even live there, who have deprived a hundred people in our community of housing. I find that reprehensible. And I'm not going to mince words about that.

[dtkvictim]

First of all, I want to agree with you and the general sentiment of this thread. 1) I don't believe the use of this land is in the purview of anyone but the property owner, and the city to make judgements based on infrastructure capabilities. This is despite the fact I don't really like this building. 2) It's hard to imagine any showstopping complaints against this development even if neighbourhood feedback is taken into consideration...

With that said, I want to call you out on "anti-progress". I think it's a unfair term used to put down and build public resentment towards those you disagree with. As far as I'm concerned, progress is subjective. It suggests a goal with measurable progress, and the reality is there is no such "goal" to life, humanity, society, etc... Your personal goal(s) have been built up layer by layer over the course of your life, and your circumstances may have built up a very different idea of progress from other individuals. On top of that, it's extremely difficult for us to go back and reflect upon each layer, one at a time, and see if the foundations even hold true. I try to do it, but it's hard to admit when we are wrong, and it's even harder to propagate a fundamental change throughout the outer layers because we aren't computers.

Basically, the older I get, the more times I've experienced being wrong, to the point that I'll never consider my ideas (such as what progress is) to be uniquely correct. There seems to be the notion in our current political climate that all change is progress, and I don't think it's fair to label those who disagree as anti-progress.

Would you prefer if I used the word anti-change? The problem I see is that these folks would be upset about anything they perceive as a change to their neighbourhood.

As for whether putting people down like this is productive, it probably isn't, but I also don't think coddling them helps. Probably we just need to refocus things on the need for housing, and ignore the anti-change folks.

By the way, you have no idea how old I am (nor I you), I've also experienced being wrong plenty (I have literally been wrong about this before). But I also know exactly what to think about NIMBYs during a housing crisis. There is a lot I don't agree with how development is going on in the city (I think we should have a LOT more 3-6 storey developments, and then there'd be less need to focus on larger developments), but ultimately, I want to see as much housing built as sustainably as possible as quickly as possible, IMO we're beyond the point where we can realistically be choosy about what we get. We're seeing the price of homes rise 10% per month...that doesn't have a good outcome.

I do think anti-change is much more fair, if applied accurately. Of course people often disguise being anti-change behind other arguments, so there is still the difficulty of accurately reading between the lines, and the difficulty of not subconsciously morphing all opposition into one super-NIMBY entity.

I'm not the language police, so keep writing however you please. It was just more of a suggestion for how you may be framing your thoughts, and maybe how what you write may cause your readers to "Other" people with different... let's say, viewpoints.

And I didn't mean to make any ageist comment, I was just trying to detail my own experiences.

[danbrotherston]

Would you prefer if I used the word anti-change? The problem I see is that these folks would be upset about anything they perceive as a change to their neighbourhood.

As for whether putting people down like this is productive, it probably isn't, but I also don't think coddling them helps. Probably we just need to refocus things on the need for housing, and ignore the anti-change folks.

By the way, you have no idea how old I am (nor I you), I've also experienced being wrong plenty (I have literally been wrong about this before). But I also know exactly what to think about NIMBYs during a housing crisis. There is a lot I don't agree with how development is going on in the city (I think we should have a LOT more 3-6 storey developments, and then there'd be less need to focus on larger developments), but ultimately, I want to see as much housing built as sustainably as possible as quickly as possible, IMO we're beyond the point where we can realistically be choosy about what we get. We're seeing the price of homes rise 10% per month...that doesn't have a good outcome.

I do think anti-change is much more fair, if applied accurately. Of course people often disguise being anti-change behind other arguments, so there is still the difficulty of accurately reading between the lines, and the difficulty of not subconsciously morphing all opposition into one super-NIMBY entity.

I'm not the language police, so keep writing however you please. It was just more of a suggestion for how you may be framing your thoughts, and maybe how what you write may cause your readers to "Other" people with different... let's say, viewpoints.

And I didn't mean to make any ageist comment, I was just trying to detail my own experiences.

That's all fair.

But I mean, my comment was essentially about the fact that the reliable NIMBY responses are hiding other maybe more legitimate suggestions for the development.

But like I said, at the end of the day, I think we're beyond any criticism, given the housing affordability crisis we're seeing, we should build every home that someone is willing to build. But maybe I'm just looking at the average home price and freaking out a bit.

[panamaniac]

"Anti-progress" and "Anti-change" suggests that there is no room for negotiation when a project is proposed. I understand that when a developer pitches an idea to City staff that there is an awful lot of boring background back-and-forth that happens before the project becomes public.  The challenge for others in the neighbourhood is that when the project is revealed, they are presented with a "once and done" proposal, often with variance requests that rankle the neighbourhood as they watch hard fought for rules and guidelines get nibbled away.  The rule and guidelines likely came from public consultation processes that these very same neighbours may have had a hand in drafting. 

Every building in the Region is the result of "progress" and "change".  Viewed several decades (or even a century) after construction, there have been hits and misses.  There have also been civic or developer visions that were either still-born or didn't get far past the pilot stage before they stopped for any number of reasons.  Can those who are called "anti-progress" or "anti-change" be faulted if they observe that a proposed project appears to replicate some of the failures of the past, or worse yet, create a new problem that no one has seen yet? It also important to remember that there is no homogenous vision for what the perfect urban form is. (We don't have Napoleon III and Georges-Eugène Haussman to wipe the slate clean and start over as they did in Paris in the mid-1800s)

I think that Polocorp has done a good job to come up with a compromise that uses the land and salvages some of their investment.

Do you doubt that he'll make buckets of money, if the project is built?

[Coke6pk]

I think NIMBY's need to take a look at what they are protecting.

The house I own backs onto green space and the Grand River. It was built in this subdivision towards the end of the development, so the view I enjoy from my back yard / deck, is the same view my neighbour across the street lost when this was built. Now I'm not the original owner (and I'm not sure my across the street neighbour was either), but if NIMBY's prevailed, I wouldn't have this home I enjoy now.

When they started an expansion of this subdivision down my street, there were lots of complaints, but it made me wonder, why should I block people from being able to live in this neighbourhood I love? Unless you live in a 100 year old farmhouse, you should be at least willing to accept the possibility of change.

Now my last house (Highbrook St) backed onto green space as well, but it was zoned commercial. I didn't complain when Starbucks/Petro Canada were built, but I was a NIMBY when I had 5 bay doors of a tire shop facing my bedroom window 80' away. There is a time and a place where NIMBYism is appropriate.... this development isn't.

Coke

[nms]

Do you doubt that he'll make buckets of money, if the project is built?

I don't doubt that he'll make a profit, just not as much profit as would have been expected when there was a larger project with more units to sell.

As for the 'baking in' of variances to the process overall, to the general citizen in the neighbourhood, the perception is that developers are forever pushing the limits in order to maximize their investment. The tradeoff for the neighbours is the potential for adverse affects to their immediate future.  This could include things like reducing setbacks to zero so a neighbour will now see a blank wall at the edge of their property, or having their sidewalks reduced to narrow wind tunnels when a building is pushed right to the sidewalk rather than leaving a setback that leaves the option for wider sidewalks or multiuse trails.

Yes, there is a housing crisis.  But removing all barriers and suggesting that cities must accept whatever is proposed simply for the sake of making more space is a huge loss to the community.  If every developer were to come forward and commit to 20% of all their future buildings to be targeted to geared-to-income or other forms of affordable housing, then that might make their excuses for variances more palatable. If every existing landlord committed to converting 20% of their existing stock as affordable housing sprinkled among the existing buildings would be another great start.  Even, at the very least, committing to maintaining the same number of affordable housing units that their new construction is displacing would be a great start. Accepting a variance that commits to moving affordable housing (or any other kind of municipal goals) elsewhere than the proposed development site does nothing more than leave the existing neighbourhood poorer for the loss.

[danbrotherston]

Do you doubt that he'll make buckets of money, if the project is built?

I don't doubt that he'll make a profit, just not as much profit as would have been expected when there was a larger project with more units to sell.

As for the 'baking in' of variances to the process overall, to the general citizen in the neighbourhood, the perception is that developers are forever pushing the limits in order to maximize their investment. The tradeoff for the neighbours is the potential for adverse affects to their immediate future.  This could include things like reducing setbacks to zero so a neighbour will now see a blank wall at the edge of their property, or having their sidewalks reduced to narrow wind tunnels when a building is pushed right to the sidewalk rather than leaving a setback that leaves the option for wider sidewalks or multiuse trails.

Yes, there is a housing crisis.  But removing all barriers and suggesting that cities must accept whatever is proposed simply for the sake of making more space is a huge loss to the community.  If every developer were to come forward and commit to 20% of all their future buildings to be targeted to geared-to-income or other forms of affordable housing, then that might make their excuses for variances more palatable. If every existing landlord committed to converting 20% of their existing stock as affordable housing sprinkled among the existing buildings would be another great start.  Even, at the very least, committing to maintaining the same number of affordable housing units that their new construction is displacing would be a great start. Accepting a variance that commits to moving affordable housing (or any other kind of municipal goals) elsewhere than the proposed development site does nothing more than leave the existing neighbourhood poorer for the loss.

That is the perception, because that is the narrative being pushed, rather than what is actually happened, which is developers are working through the process we have setup.

Perhaps I should not have implied all barriers should be removed. We shouldn't compromise on fire safety and such. But we are quickly losing the ability to care about setbacks and that type of thing. I'm not saying that there aren't reasons for some *SOME* of these restrictions, but those benefits are a luxury which we are quickly squandering on other bullshit like "I don't want a tower".

You'll note that none of those objections existed here, the developer wasn't asking for unreasonable setbacks. There were a few who objected to losing the affordable housing, but that was nothing more than an excuse, those who made that objection didn't ask for more affordable housing, they asked for less total housing (which they have now achieved, in addition to removing any affordable housing concession, and they are happy with that result).