TO high on crack
So says Gawker. This has been picked up by The Star, which is pushing this as a story about Rob Ford — understandably, in light of the video they have watched that they claim clearly displays him apparently smoking crack and partying.
What The Star downplays is the following detail from the Gawker:
Rob Ford purchases his crack cocaine from a crew of Toronto drug dealers that service a veritable who’s who of A-list…Torontonians? Torontites? Anyway, a lot of prominent people in Toronto purchase and enjoy crack and powder cocaine, and they all buy it from the same folks. The same folks Ford buys it from. Ford’s longtime friend, people on his staff, his brother, a prominent hockey analyst, and more.
Who else are they talking about? How far is this scandal going to spread?
… and does this explain the condo bubble???????? (THAT’S A JOKE, SOL)
OVER UNDER 50% 46% SOLD!!!!!!!!!
UPDATED
… lotta action over a product no one seems to want …
UPDATE:
They say condos are sold like salami: what counts is not the # of units but the total square footage. By OCA calculations, this project has sold 48.7% 46.0% of the residential floorplate:
… interesting the way identical units are coming back out in blocks of fours — suggests bulk purchasers may have simply walked away from the deal …
… the question is not completely straightforward to answer, but cursory examination suggests that close to the entire eastern flank of the building is back on the market
What’s going on?
And what has happened so far? Get the details in our white paper ‘Ossington, 109OZ, and the Ossington Area Study/Official Plan Amendment: the current state of play, what the outcome will mean for Toronto, and a summary of Ossington community activism’
Letter to Jennifer Keesmaat
Dear Chief Planner Keesmaat,
In your letter to Jessica Wilson of 13 February, you state that the area-specific Official Plan policy for the ‘Ossington Strip’ will need to recognize that /Mixed Use Areas/ should provide for growth. The attached graphic shows that the recognized provision for growth necessary for an area-specific Official Plan policy is compatible with a restriction of new development to the low-rise level.
The attached graphic shows also that such a restriction has been imposed in 13 other area-specific policies in the Toronto-East York district. Five of these prevail in what are, arguably, Toronto’s most culturally or otherwise significant districts (174 Yonge-Dundas; 211 Yorkville; 197 Kensington; 200 Chinatown; 155 Church-Wellesley); two prevail in the bohemia of decades past (334 Bloor/Annex; 199b Baldwin Village); one preserves a quaint half-block (164 St Joseph Cottages); the remaining five prevail in areas of long-term fashionability among the upper classes (231 Yonge/Rosedale (N); 210 Yonge/Rosedale (S); 198 Annex/Old Yorkville; 199a Avenue-Pears; 264 Casa Loma). By contrast, despite the long-term cultural dynamism of the ‘West End’ (Old Toronto south of Dupont, Bathurst to Roncesvalles), no such restriction prevails anywhere in the West End.
The attached graphic shows finally that, as the geographic ‘hub’ of the West End and, for nearly a decade, the West End’s gold standard and central meeting-place, the Ossington Strip is unequalled in its significance for this dynamism. The Official Plan valorizes this sort of cultural dynamism at 2-8 and 3-32, and promises it protection in 2.2.1P2b and 3.5.2P5. Such protection for the Ossington Strip is presumably at least as warranted as that prevailing in various elite promenades and relics of old bohemia.
We urge City Planning to at last take up the crucial issue of culture as this process rolls to its end. In our view, Chief Planner, you face a choice about the legacy you will leave for Toronto: you can by neglect permit free enterprise to steamroll what is genuinely lively and alluring about this city; or you can follow the past Planners who protected those areas of cultural and historical significance that we now appreciate as our city’s greatest treasures.
Benj Hellie
Director
Ossington Community Association (Corporation)
west end bikeway system vs area 2
at present the west end does not have a bikeway system in any reasonable sense
an ambitious plan fixes this:
South of Harbord, the East-West options are (2) dodge car doors on College (3) cruise pleasantly up Argyle-Robinson.
The proposal for Argyle is for a “contra-flow” bike lane: in addition to the existing one-way traffic, an additional lane would run bikes the opposite direction of traffic. The Toronto Bike Lane Design Guidelines for contra-flow bike lanes look like this:
Argyle between Ossington and Givins is 6m wide thanks to the row of silver maples planted there around 2003. Argyle also at present has a parking lane. The street depicted in 2B8 is 1.3m wider than Argyle. Apparently the “absolute minimum” width for contra-flow is 1.5m (see p10). Still, 1.1m need to come from somewhere. But where!?!?!?
…
– ah! the solution is blindingly obvious: convert Argyle into a traffic sewer for midrise condos and chain stores!!!!!
Compare and contrast
<unreality>
Councillor Layton opposes midrise at 103, 109–11 Ossington Ave on the grounds that the affected segment of Ossington is not a growth area:
“As for whether the area should be earmarked for more midrise development, the answer for Layton is no. Buildings like that belong at places like Queen West and Dundas West, he said. “There certainly should be reasonable intensification, but this part of Ossington Ave. is not part of a growth node, a growth corridor,” he said. “It’s not about, are you pro- or anti-development … It’s about what’s right exactly for the site that you’re considering.””
</unreality>
<reality>
Councillor Matlow opposes midrise at 281–89 Avenue Rd on the grounds that the affected segment of Avenue is not a growth area:
“As for whether the area should be earmarked for more midrise development, the answer for Matlow is no. Buildings like that belong at places like Yonge and Eglinton, he said.
“There certainly should be reasonable intensification, but this part of Avenue Rd. is not part of a growth node, a growth centre,” he said. “It’s not about, are you pro- or anti-development … It’s about what’s right exactly for the site that you’re considering.””
</reality>
BACKGROUNDER ABOUT 281–89 AVENUE RD:
This area is land-use designated “Apartment Neighbourhoods”:
OP4.2 on Apartment Neighbourhoods calls for “opportunities for additional apartments on underutilized sites”
There is an eight-storey building just next door to the site:
Yonge and Eglinton is, of course, designated a “Centre” in the city’s growth structure.
BACKGROUNDER ABOUT 103, 109–11 OSSINGTON AVE:
This area is land-use designated “Mixed Use Areas”:
OP4.5 on Mixed Use Areas calls for “absorbing new housing”
All buildings anywhere in the vicinity are 3 storeys or less:
Queen West and Dundas West are, of course, designated “Avenues” in the city’s growth structure.
If I had one picture to sum it all up …
it would look like this:
