Television city condos | 109 m | 32 & 32 fl | Under Construction

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Berklon

I like the symmetry as well. This is good... just hope it doesn't take too long to get it going.

It looks nice. and I'm glad they're saving the c.~1850? house as well.
The interior units facing each other would suck though

[lachlanholmes]

Making good progress on the demolition. Pictures taken this afternoon:

[shoelessjoe]

Amazing looking building when it was new -- as a kid I remember the article in the Spectator about it opening titled "Spaceship 11" -- used to have big blocky C H C H T V lettering on the Caroline St. side of the building.

Interior (brief) shot of the historic Pinehurst/Bishopshurst/Southam mansion at 163 Jackson St W - Anchors Connie Smith and (now MPP) Donna Skelly walking down the stairs. Other versions of these promos had brief shots of the building interiors.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeWs3V4XwbE

[The Gore]

You cringe every time there is a demolition - happens so quickly.
You trust that new development will follow in a timely manner.

[Fruitloops]

Wonder if that show salvage kings is still kicking around. Priestly demo was the gist of the show.

[ScreamingViking]

More demo pics from The Schpec:

[johnnyhamont]

demo progress from today

[johnnyhamont]

Photos from yesterday

[King&James]

just a shot from my camera back in the fall of 1984. It was quite a development in that time and space. Looking forward to the next new life.

[Innsertnamehere]

[Innsertnamehere]

https://twitter.com/CameronKroetsch/...370511872?s=20

Kroetsch going off about some odd bureaucracy on tree removals and how he thinks Developers need to give public notice for routine construction works like vegetation removal which should be approved by the municipality (??) so that we can save trees for an extra "60 days".

I'm sorry, what? how is this a priority? Who cares? If the trees are coming down for a development, why does the developer have to provide extensive notice for his work? Kroetsch frames it as allowing them to be kept for another 30-60 days (woohoo I guess), but Lamb would have just provided notice for the same removal date I imagine.. great job, introducing another hoop a developer has to jump through for no result.

Once the city signs off on the tree protection plan, who cares when they come down.. SPA processes are undelegated from council for a reason -details like this and requiring private property owners to play politics with the local councillor on small stuff on private property is just ridiculous.

I think Kroetsch is great at being far more responsive and open than Farr and is genuinely trying to improve this city, and I have to commend him on that.. but he's barking up the wrong tree here, literally.

[mikevbar1]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

https://twitter.com/CameronKroetsch/...370511872?s=20

Kroetsch going off about some odd bureaucracy on tree removals and how he thinks Developers need to give public notice for routine construction works like vegetation removal which should be approved by the municipality (??) so that we can save trees for an extra "60 days".

I'm sorry, what? how is this a priority? Who cares? If the trees are coming down for a development, why does the developer have to provide extensive notice for his work? Kroetsch frames it as allowing them to be kept for another 30-60 days (woohoo I guess), but Lamb would have just provided notice for the same removal date I imagine.. great job, introducing another hoop a developer has to jump through for no result.

Once the city signs off on the tree protection plan, who cares when they come down.. SPA processes are undelegated from council for a reason -details like this and requiring private property owners to play politics with the local councillor on small stuff on private property is just ridiculous.

I think Kroetsch is great at being far more responsive and open than Farr and is genuinely trying to improve this city, and I have to commend him on that.. but he's barking up the wrong tree here, literally.

Could be a case where he's just representing the people of his ward. It's a pretty affluent area, and trees are one of the things those types like to latch onto when they have a problem with development. Kroetch probably should've vetted that first, but he always finds a way to get a word in.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by mikevbar1

Could be a case where he's just representing the people of his ward. It's a pretty affluent area, and trees are one of the things those types like to latch onto when they have a problem with development. Kroetch probably should've vetted that first, but he always finds a way to get a word in.

yea- the initial knee jerk reaction from a few months ago was fine, I didn't fret about it too much.. but trying to implement new policies on it is a much more premeditated thing which is not a great idea to me.

I understand Council is pushing for a tree preservation by-law right now which is likely where this is partially rooted from.. but man, it's just not the right answer here either. And it's another step further than a tree preservation by-law - the trees here were approved for removal by the city, there is no reason you need another step where the municipality needs to approve the construction schedule too.

[TheRitsman]

I disagree. Hamilton has a pervasive issue where demolition permits are approved, and then land speculation occurs. Sometimes structures or trees are taken down without a proper plan in place. Connolly and Jamesville Lofts come to mind as other bad examples, but the corner of Barton and Wellington is another where nothing it happening.

Ensuring developers are serious about moving forward on projects is key to ensuring;
a) Development actually happens and isn't simple speculating of land.
b) Reducing time wasted by staff on permits and projects that have no intention of coming to fruition any time soon, so they can focus on project's happening now.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by TheRitsman

I disagree. Hamilton has a pervasive issue where demolition permits are approved, and then land speculation occurs. Sometimes structures or trees are taken down without a proper plan in place. Connolly and Jamesville Lofts come to mind as other bad examples, but the corner of Barton and Wellington is another where nothing it happening.

Ensuring developers are serious about moving forward on projects is key to ensuring;
a) Development actually happens and isn't simple speculating of land.
b) Reducing time wasted by staff on permits and projects that have no intention of coming to fruition any time soon, so they can focus on project's happening now.

the point here is that there was an approved site plan application and tree preservation plan in place - and development followed immediately afterwards. I just don't get the concern about how the trees "could have" stayed up a few extra weeks - it's just not really reasonable to regulate down to such small timescales, nor do I think developers should have to provide the neighbourhood extensive notice of any construction activities they may be undertaking beyond the typical construction management type activites (i.e. alerting motorists of a lane closure and providing safe pedestrian paths around a development site).

I agree more broadly about the need for a tree-preservation by-law, but that more formally needs control about tree removal, not control over the timing of removal following the approval of such removal.

Introducing requirements for developers to submit tree removal timelines for approval will do nothing but waste staff and developer time on something that isn't necessary.

Kroetsch's specific quote is:

For those who might just be seeing this for the first time, the issue was primarily that developers are not required to provide a demolition date or tree removal date as part of their application for a permit. That needs to change.

I'm just not sure why developers should be required to post specific construction timelines, and apparently be held to them. Construction is immensely complex and often challenging to hold specific timelines of such matters. Once the city signs off on the design (i.e. the removal of the trees), and a demolition permit has been issued, there isn't much more the city can or should be doing. And that's all what has happened here.

Also, Kroetsch is acting as if the tree removal, which occurred 2 months ago, could have occurred immediately before demolition - sure, maybe, but those are different contractors with different schedules and different staging of work requirements. If it's 2-3 years earlier - you may have a point.. but fretting over 2 months is just a waste of everybody's time. It's just a complete non-problem.

Regarding focusing on "real" applications - unfortunately it's a hard nut to crack. The City could require a demolition permit not be issued prior to the submission or issuance of an actual construction permit as well, which is common practice in Toronto - but having an issued construction permit still doesn't guarantee the developer will actually build anything, the city doesn't have the ability to compel developers to do that.

[TheHonestMaple]

The roads are quite literally crumbling and in some areas completely undrivable in Ward 2. This guy is focusing on saving "green friends" for 60 days. Where is this guy's priorities at?

[PaperSun]

Originally Posted by TheHonestMaple

The roads are quite literally crumbling and in some areas completely undrivable in Ward 2. This guy is focusing on saving "green friends" for 60 days. Where is this guy's priorities at?

Security beefed up at City Hall because of an incident last week.
Sheraton and Denningers begging for more police presence in Ward 2.
Meanwhile Cameron is running around yelling defund the police and save trees for another 30 days that will be removed in the end regardless.

[PaperSun]

Pictures taken May 31, 2023
CHCH gone

[atnor]

Kroetsch is worse than Farr.

[TheHonestMaple]

What did he do this time?