Rosemary Waterston
Rosemary Waterston's projects
Recent Activity
Supported a comment by Seth McDermott on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 months ago
Supported a comment by S. Walker on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 months ago
S. Walker
Community Arts and Culture are very important. One of the most driving factors of living in Toronto is the amazing culture and art we have in the city. This development needs to consider this an a important feature of the space. Development should also consider access to space for artists and a space of gathering and events for the public. Similar to the front street promenade.
Community Arts and Culture are very important. One of the most driving factors of living in Toronto is the amazing culture and art we have in the city. This development needs to consider this an a important feature of the space. Development should also consider access to space for artists and a space of gathering and events for the public. Similar to the front street promenade.
Supported a comment by Jason Self on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 months ago
Jason Self
Ensure the built form respects the vernacular of the immediate area. Don't build generic condos with glass spandral, instead use brick and other 'home' elements. The public realm is key as is a zero carbon footprint
Ensure the built form respects the vernacular of the immediate area. Don't build generic condos with glass spandral, instead use brick and other 'home' elements. The public realm is key as is a zero carbon footprint
Supported a comment by Rob Hatton on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 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.
Supported a comment by Paul Y on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 months ago
Paul Y
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.
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.
Supported a comment by Eli D on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 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.
Supported a comment by Paul Y on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 4 months ago
Paul Y
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.
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.
Supported a comment by Veronica T on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 6 months ago
Veronica T
1) Birds - should be designed to avoid disruption to migration patterns and glass should include mechanisms to prevent birds from flying into them 2) can all residential buildings be on the outside of the perimeter ? if they are surrounded by office buildings they'll have poor views and lower value. 3) I think more grass and park space is necessary. if you're incorporating that many residential buildings, you're going to have dogs and pets that will need the green space. More greenspace modeled after the Esplanade, which has open fields and a basketball court, would be beneficial. It's a great greenspace that connects the Distillery to the St Lawrence market 4) please cater to local business, it would be a shame to see all big chain restaurants and shops.
1) Birds - should be designed to avoid disruption to migration patterns and glass should include mechanisms to prevent birds from flying into them 2) can all residential buildings be on the outside of the perimeter ? if they are surrounded by office buildings they'll have poor views and lower value. 3) I think more grass and park space is necessary. if you're incorporating that many residential buildings, you're going to have dogs and pets that will need the green space. More greenspace modeled after the Esplanade, which has open fields and a basketball court, would be beneficial. It's a great greenspace that connects the Distillery to the St Lawrence market 4) please cater to local business, it would be a shame to see all big chain restaurants and shops.
Supported a comment by Tony Whitaker on
Engage East Harbour
1 year, 6 months ago
Tony Whitaker
Residential uses should be for all and affordable housing allocation should follow City inclusive zoning guidelines. Residential buildings should be no taller than those in West Don Lands directly across the Don River. up to 65 storeys belong at Yonge and Bloor and in the downtown core.
Residential uses should be for all and affordable housing allocation should follow City inclusive zoning guidelines. Residential buildings should be no taller than those in West Don Lands directly across the Don River. up to 65 storeys belong at Yonge and Bloor and in the downtown core.
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 7 months ago
Someone who lives close by
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 7 months ago
Green spaces! The bits of green shown on your plans are too small. There needs to be a big park with space for a soccer pitch and baseball diamond. If you are adding 4000 residences this area needs real parkland, not just "gathering places" and "squares" with a few trees.
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 7 months ago
Community Services & Facilities
Followed Engage East Harbour
1 year, 7 months ago
Commented on Engage East Harbour
1 year, 7 months ago
Someone who lives close by
Housing affordability, small independent retail, and public services to make it a complete community. It won't work to just have residential if we don't also think about necessary things like schools, libraries, and other services.