Paul Y's projects
Recent Activity
Supported a comment by Paula Virany on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 3 months ago
Supported a comment by Tony Whitaker on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 5 months ago
Tony Whitaker
Good luck with that, indeed. 65 storey residential towers with a large component of 1 bedrooms for investors and Airbnb landlords is not what East Harbour should be all about.
Good luck with that, indeed. 65 storey residential towers with a large component of 1 bedrooms for investors and Airbnb landlords is not what East Harbour should be all about.
Supported a comment by Rob Hatton on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 6 months ago
Rob Hatton
Good luck with that. They are going 10 - 20 stories higher to squeeze in the extra residential units. Maybe there will be red brick planters.
Good luck with that. They are going 10 - 20 stories higher to squeeze in the extra residential units. Maybe there will be red brick planters.
Supported a comment by Rob Hatton on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 7 months ago
Rob Hatton
Cassidy.. I get you. When theEast Harbour transit hub (your tax dollars) was planned it was for union station east - a financial district hub serving land zoned for employment-only by the city. There are 300 acres of residential available one block south. Adding residential to east harbour (cad Fairview still says they will build the full office too) is an $800m profit gift to the developer - they paid for office-only land. And it is an added density burden on the community (traffic, etc). What do we get in return? Ask mr. Ford but I bet he gets paid first. I agree it will likely be sterile, because that what business does.
Cassidy.. I get you. When theEast Harbour transit hub (your tax dollars) was planned it was for union station east - a financial district hub serving land zoned for employment-only by the city. There are 300 acres of residential available one block south. Adding residential to east harbour (cad Fairview still says they will build the full office too) is an $800m profit gift to the developer - they paid for office-only land. And it is an added density burden on the community (traffic, etc). What do we get in return? Ask mr. Ford but I bet he gets paid first. I agree it will likely be sterile, because that what business does.
Supported a comment by Erin Atkinson on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Erin Atkinson
The subway should be underground
The subway should be underground
Supported a comment by Eli D on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Eli D
It's so true, everything you said. They don't care, they are just here to make a profit and it is likely that all of these comments are going to be ignored how they usually are. And we are the bad guys whose voices are brushed under the table because we "oppose the development". I don't oppose anything, but I am tired of seeing all of these issues about design and culture and affordability being swept under the rug. No developer is able to sit back and say their development has flaws because they realistically are just there in the interim following orders. We're just thinking several boxy blue/green glass towers with an ok spandrel, nothing too out of the box, nothing too progressive.. okay, yep boss, whatever you say... and the trend repeats itself. Canary wharf, Hudson yards, south core they all follow the same principle of being a corporate and soulless lacklustre downtown. What is staggering is that even after designing all of these districts, there is countless criticism that Cadillac Fairview or Adamson never learn from. Multiple articles, videos and comments on websites are proof that people tend to stay away from these kinds of developments. Countless people have asked about arts, quality and forward-thinking design, but nope, the renderings are bland as usual. It's tasteless and we'll just have to sit back and watch the developer go with what they know, resisting the urge to challenge the binary and create a memorable district known by the world.
It's so true, everything you said. They don't care, they are just here to make a profit and it is likely that all of these comments are going to be ignored how they usually are. And we are the bad guys whose voices are brushed under the table because we "oppose the development". I don't oppose anything, but I am tired of seeing all of these issues about design and culture and affordability being swept under the rug. No developer is able to sit back and say their development has flaws because they realistically are just there in the interim following orders. We're just thinking several boxy blue/green glass towers with an ok spandrel, nothing too out of the box, nothing too progressive.. okay, yep boss, whatever you say... and the trend repeats itself. Canary wharf, Hudson yards, south core they all follow the same principle of being a corporate and soulless lacklustre downtown. What is staggering is that even after designing all of these districts, there is countless criticism that Cadillac Fairview or Adamson never learn from. Multiple articles, videos and comments on websites are proof that people tend to stay away from these kinds of developments. Countless people have asked about arts, quality and forward-thinking design, but nope, the renderings are bland as usual. It's tasteless and we'll just have to sit back and watch the developer go with what they know, resisting the urge to challenge the binary and create a memorable district known by the world.
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Agree. Some will be drawn to this development, note that about 1/2 the units will likely be bought by investors. https://storeys.com/toronto-condos-investor-owned/ While this may be great for mortgage lenders, developers and consultants it doesn't guarantee good design or "community building" will be big priorities.
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Mix of Uses
Supported a comment by Rob Hatton on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Rob Hatton
While these concerns are appropriate, keep in mind that the residential density is not about creating beautiful spaces - it's about giving the developer $5 b worth of density to sell and about $800m worth of profit (yes an $800m gift! Merry Christmas) that can be realized quickly in the condo market - vs the expected slow uptake for commercial space. Getting back a few meeting spaces and park benches is total chump change - even a contribution to the GO station (how much can a GO station without parking cost, really?) is likely to be peanuts in comparison. The negative impact on traffic will outshine any 'mixed use' development benefits.
While these concerns are appropriate, keep in mind that the residential density is not about creating beautiful spaces - it's about giving the developer $5 b worth of density to sell and about $800m worth of profit (yes an $800m gift! Merry Christmas) that can be realized quickly in the condo market - vs the expected slow uptake for commercial space. Getting back a few meeting spaces and park benches is total chump change - even a contribution to the GO station (how much can a GO station without parking cost, really?) is likely to be peanuts in comparison. The negative impact on traffic will outshine any 'mixed use' development benefits.
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
It seems Mayor Tory is silent on this and is by default, siding with the Premier. If no one speaks up, there will be no planning - no public benefits, no affordability, minimal parks, no schools, etc. City staff and our elected reps have been pushed aside by the Province. Who is doing the negotiating for community and City benefits? Sadly, this is an developer-planned MZO according to staff, see pg 2 https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-168262.pdf
Supported a comment by Rob Hatton on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Rob Hatton
You have all gone for the bait and switch, discussing final design issues which will be ignored, while the addition of res to this development serves one purpose - to confer to the developer a gift worth close to $1 billion in future profits, without any disclosure of what the public gets in return, and without any regard for planning issues - especially traffic associated with 6,000 new residents (one new intersection at Broadview and Lakeshore and improvements at Don Roadway, but no new highway off ramps to the east, so nothing to cope with 6,000 residents and the 'promise' of 10 million square feet of office). Meanwhile the existing neighbourhood and City taxpayers will bear the brunt of this and the above ground subway, which facilitates a little extra space on the site for these residential units. Hired hacks are used to poison public meetings with comments like "don't worry about those entitled existing local residents". Who to consider then? The wealthy developer interests who live elsewhere? The only real issue here is why is the Ford Government dictating this neighbourhood design? Is the City government of Toronto irrelevant? Cornwall has more power.
You have all gone for the bait and switch, discussing final design issues which will be ignored, while the addition of res to this development serves one purpose - to confer to the developer a gift worth close to $1 billion in future profits, without any disclosure of what the public gets in return, and without any regard for planning issues - especially traffic associated with 6,000 new residents (one new intersection at Broadview and Lakeshore and improvements at Don Roadway, but no new highway off ramps to the east, so nothing to cope with 6,000 residents and the 'promise' of 10 million square feet of office). Meanwhile the existing neighbourhood and City taxpayers will bear the brunt of this and the above ground subway, which facilitates a little extra space on the site for these residential units. Hired hacks are used to poison public meetings with comments like "don't worry about those entitled existing local residents". Who to consider then? The wealthy developer interests who live elsewhere? The only real issue here is why is the Ford Government dictating this neighbourhood design? Is the City government of Toronto irrelevant? Cornwall has more power.
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Generally interested in the project
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
800 comments on Parks? Trees? Culture? Maybe . . . as a way to market this plan. It is not endorsed by our elected representatives or City planning staff. It will go forward as a Ministerial Zoning Order (see staff report - top of pg 2). LINK: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2021/ph/bgrd/backgroundfile-168262.pdf The province is giving the developer a massive re-zoning and we/the City are left out. The consultants and developer are here short-term. We can take up valuable time asking about public space, affrdble housing, parks, trees and culture however, without the City planning process there are no agreements and no reasons I can see why a developer (partnered with the Premier) would spend on these extras. Cadillac Fairview (owned by the Teachers Pension Fund btw) will maximize profit for share holders regardless of what we add to this list of opinions. We have no power. And yes we have a huge affordability crisis in Toronto but from my experience living here since mid 80's simply building more condos has never resulted in affordability. Public funding (from development charges etc.) and/or development agreements have. Where I live, a family shelter was integrated into a condo because the Councillor and staff worked with the developer and made it a condition for approval. Will this developer funded consulting team figure out how to ensure the developer provides what the City planners and Elected reps would have demanded? Don't think so. Look at who has the power.
Followed Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 8 months ago
Generally interested in the project
Is it the Manhattanization of Toronto or the Strip Mall-ization of Toronto?
Cadillac-Fairview's plan is to destroy all heritage buildings on the site. It would be illegal for them to do that, however the Ford government passed legislation that allows destruction of heritage buildings via MZO's (a very aggressive, undemocratic approach.) It led to public demonstrations when the government moved to destroy the Foundries Building. Luckily demonstrators stopped that.
There are three beautiful old brick buildings on the East Harbour site. They are the Unilever building, 433 Eastern and the old Consumers' Gas company building at 419 Eastern. These buildings must be kept intact or incorporated into the new design. It is the history of a city that gives it character, charm and ultimately liveability.
Policy makers often explain that Toronto is going through “Manhattanization” i.e. it is becoming a large, dense city. This is accurate, however one of the reasons that NYC is so fantastic is that it's FULL of gorgeous historical buildings, such as the old brownstones (many are now condos) Greenwich Village, the Meat Packing district etc. All these add beauty and charm to NYC.
If Toronto keeps levelling all its heritage buildings this will not be Manhattanization. It will be a soulless mess.
Can Cadillac Fairview serve our great city and country and keep the heritage buildings? Isn’t that their civic duty?
Will these buildings be left intact or be incorporated into the design? As lobbies, parts of buildings or facades?