(06-26-2022, 08:22 PM)bravado Wrote: What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that?

(06-26-2022, 06:22 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(06-26-2022, 05:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, I agree with you completely. But like I said, we should stop listening to these people, we should start calling them on their bullshit.

Honestly, I think this is a fairly toxic situation in our society...people have never been faced with their bullshit. It's the same with the freedumb morons. They've been pandered to for years, every moronic thought that enters their brain was listened to, and now they're marching on the capital because being asked to wear a mask communism to them. Obviously that's an extreme example, but it comes from the same place.

I'm not suggesting that we don't speak to these people with compassion, but humouring their bullshit doesn't help anyone.

Bolding the first line of jamincan's post because it can be interpreted two different ways (not sure how he intended), but I read it a little differently than I think you did. The public doesn't collectively form a coherent opinion because such a collective opinion doesn't really exist, it's the sum of thousands of opinions each of which are far more valid than the sum of their parts.

Using language like "these people" to fully disregard the individuals you are referring to makes me think you are falling into the same trap as politicians who listen to the collective output. Take opposition to a development as an example (I'm being generously positive here just for the sake of example, I know it's actually worse): 100 people report 100 different minor, non-blocking gripes against a development. The perspective politicians incorrectly take is attributing the sum of all 100 issues to each of the 100 individuals, which makes them feel the public sentiment are far more negative than it may actually be. It causes them to skip right past determining which issues can and should be resolved, straight to denying the development.

On a personal level, this same issue colours my judgement of the public (and probably yours, using language like "these people"). I easily look at this example and think "Wow, I completely disagree with all 100 of these people", but in reality I'm in at least 99% agreement with all 100 individuals, and of the 100 possible issues I only disagree with each individual on at most 1 specific problem.

A lot of bullshit issues are going to be brought up, and those do need to be called out. But that needs to be done without calling the more reasonable concerns bullshit as well. It just really sucks to be addressing major change within our cities while undergoing multiple crises as it feels like we don't have time for the nuance these issues deserve.

(06-26-2022, 09:05 PM)ac3r Wrote:

(06-26-2022, 08:22 PM)bravado Wrote: What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that?

Because if there is going to be a new project in a neighbourhood, it's important to consult with existing neighbours. There are often legitimate concerns or questions about things and often there are good suggestions people have that can be implemented in a project. I mean...when it comes to things like bike lanes, I think all of us here would agree that we would love to see the cities and region in particular more involved because they often design really asinine bike infrastructure that is very dangerous.

Usually the public just has nonsensical opposition to a project (it's too tall, the shadows will be problematic, there will be too much traffic, they can't have "poor people" living near them which we often hear when it comes to affordable housing projects, "we're becoming like Toronto"...I even remember one guy quoted in The Record as saying we're becoming like Manhattan lmao) but if they are fair in their complaints, a developer can go back to the drawing board to make alterations to things such as adding setbacks to upper levels to mitigate things like shadows or adding lots of trees surrounding the project so neighbours don't see a massive building when they look out their windows.

They can also suggest great ideas such as adding park spaces, better lighting for the streets, artistic features (think Charlie West where they added a place to hang artworks as well as leasing out a portion of the windows at ground level to KWAG for small art exhibitions though I don't believe that was added due to public suggestions), improved sidewalks, public benches, safety features (i.e. signage/lights/alarms for parking exits), things like improved drainage features...with an office building I helped designed in Montréal, I once had a person point out that a certain part of the building could cause problems with ice buildup on the sidewalk and so we implemented a way to mitigate that - a totally minor and overlooked thing on our part. On another project I worked on in Berlin, some people suggested the developer include the green roof I had designed which would help with the heat island effect, so with some discussions I managed to convince the developer to include that despite the additional costs.

Allowing the public to participate in the process is a great thing and in most cases, it is beneficial in getting things approved if they know their concerns are being considered. And it's also beneficial in demonstrating to the residents of your city that their concerns can be taken into account, which in the long term is good if people know that things won't be blindly approved with no consultation. If this often annoying and unfortunate process didn't occur, you'd have people getting progressively more upset with choices that are made which can snowball into a larger annoyance, which can then influence things come election time or result in cities making drastic changes to what is and is not allowed.

That said, there is really no reason a project like Victoria and Park should not have been approved. Sure, it would have cast shadows on neighbouring houses but the benefits of the project far outweigh that minor inconvenience. Now I just hope NIMBYs don't cause another uproar and get 26 Charles and 88 Queen cancelled. However, I have some confidence they'll go ahead without any issue. The article in The Record seems like the usual worthless clickbait rage article that Luisa D’Amato gets paid to write. There aren't any quotes from residents raising any concerns (though I'm sure some people do have some), but rather Queen NIMBY Debbie Chapman being "flabbergasted" and anti-progress as usual. They probably have each other on speed dial so they can complain about stuff haha.

(06-27-2022, 06:57 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(06-26-2022, 06:22 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: Bolding the first line of jamincan's post because it can be interpreted two different ways (not sure how he intended), but I read it a little differently than I think you did. The public doesn't collectively form a coherent opinion because such a collective opinion doesn't really exist, it's the sum of thousands of opinions each of which are far more valid than the sum of their parts.

Using language like "these people" to fully disregard the individuals you are referring to makes me think you are falling into the same trap as politicians who listen to the collective output. Take opposition to a development as an example (I'm being generously positive here just for the sake of example, I know it's actually worse): 100 people report 100 different minor, non-blocking gripes against a development. The perspective politicians incorrectly take is attributing the sum of all 100 issues to each of the 100 individuals, which makes them feel the public sentiment are far more negative than it may actually be. It causes them to skip right past determining which issues can and should be resolved, straight to denying the development.

On a personal level, this same issue colours my judgement of the public (and probably yours, using language like "these people"). I easily look at this example and think "Wow, I completely disagree with all 100 of these people", but in reality I'm in at least 99% agreement with all 100 individuals, and of the 100 possible issues I only disagree with each individual on at most 1 specific problem.

A lot of bullshit issues are going to be brought up, and those do need to be called out. But that needs to be done without calling the more reasonable concerns bullshit as well. It just really sucks to be addressing major change within our cities while undergoing multiple crises as it feels like we don't have time for the nuance these issues deserve.

That's a fair alternative interpretation of jaminicans statement, perhaps I missinterpreted.

That being said, I do think some broad statements are possible about groups of people. For example, all people opposing a development are opposing those specific houses being built. In my opinion, in the current crisis, those people are increasing the housing crisis and causing harm, regardless of the validity of their particular motivation. I think that is fairly unambiguously true.

For me to assign specific motives and to argue their grievances are ridiculous and bullshit and made out of fear of change and generally dishonest to themselves (i.e., they've invented reasons to cover their true motives which are less palatable) is obviously a much more generalising and..."risky"...statement to make.

That being said, given what I've heard said online and in public meetings...I'm still willing to make and stand behind such a statement. I'm sure it's not true of everyone but it's true often enough that I find it a safe enough bet for me.

I'm not sure I understand the bolded statement. On an issue where people are objecting to housing being built, I don't have any agreement with them. I very rarely ever see "reasonable" issues raised, certainly not 99 out of 100 times. And...I've said it before, and I haven't changed my mind...we are past the point of having the luxury to discuss or debate or compromise on "legitimate" issues. We need more housing, we need more affordable housing. I no longer care if it is aesthetically pleasing my friends need a place to live and they don't care if their home is ugly anymore.

(06-26-2022, 08:22 PM)bravado Wrote: What purpose does consulting with the public serve? Why do property owners' opinions matter with what happens to other people's property? I don't see the purpose of democracy here. To me, it is like giving my input on a new sewage system, highway interchange. or new power lines. I'm not an engineer or designer, why the hell do I get to influence a project like that?

(06-27-2022, 08:01 PM)bravado Wrote: On the flip side, local engineers and planners get their directions from the top. And I think it's clear that our elected leaders have no inspiration or ambition in them at all.

(06-27-2022, 03:15 PM)plam Wrote: At some level, I think local consultation is useful. Experts have been known to say in the distant and not so distant past that we should just have highways everywhere. Stopping those experts was useful.

I also don't expect people to necessarily have good arguments for feeling the way they do. I've read that even judges form an opinion and then backfill arguments to support that argument. If they do it we should probably expect average people to do it too.

(06-27-2022, 08:01 PM)bravado Wrote: I was being a bit over the top with my original question and I have asked it before, but there is a reason that inspirational and ambitious things don't come from committees. Practical and compromised things come from committees...

On the flip side, local engineers and planners get their directions from the top. And I think it's clear that our elected leaders have no inspiration or ambition in them at all.