06-30-2016, 04:43 PM
(06-30-2016, 12:18 PM)tomh009 Wrote: So why was it rejected? I suspect not because of the design ...
You are setting me a tough task, here, t’9.
Going by memory, which is fast fading…
All the tougher because the expressed reasons were not extensive. Before any reasons were advanced, as the process was unfolding, there were undercurrents. Recall that the project had been “sold” (in Toronto, no less) before any approvals were even a twinkle in Council’s eye. I feel that did not sit well. Recall also that this was the project which prompted the City to labour over creating an enforceable definition of a “bedroom”, if you know what I mean. I detected that Council did not appreciate being treated as rubes.
The surrounding neighbourhood was represented by a presentation which accented how they have been adaptive and welcoming to all the challenges which have pressed in on them over the decades, but would find it difficult to contact the 250 absentee owners of this project for a neighbourhood “get acquainted” BBQ, metaphorically and literally speaking.
The nearby church recounted how it had been treated with contempt by other nearby developments, and seemed resigned to being screwed over again (that is a total paraphrase by me, since churches do not use that language), and wished the surrounding neighbourhood well in its dwindling chances of survival.
One Councillor took the lead in starting rolling the motion which seemed to have coalesced into consensus some time before. However, the Councillor’s extemporaneous speech was not too clear. Coun. Whaley added clarity by referring to the built form, the lack of interaction with the community, the over-large, over-bearing nature of the development, and a certain inflexibility on the part of the developer. A number of Councillors were absent, but among those present, the rejection was unanimous.
If one were a believer in Divine intervention, one could speculate that justice was dispensed to those who had earned favour.