Condos raise ire of residents

This is what I'm talking about when I mention the sickening predominance of NIMBYers. Osborne Village is a terrific example of increased density we should be striving for. It is also mere minutes from downtown. Yet the usual loud collection of naysayers is more concerne over FOUR houses and a few trees.

Un-be-friggen-lievable...

A new condominium project for Roslyn Road has drawn the opposition of some area residents who object to the demolition of a historic home and the removal of several mature trees.

Sunstone Resort Communities is proposing a 74-unit, 12-storey (sic) condominium complex directly behind the Osborne Village Safeway.



Read entire story here.

so a group of people is proposing building on the same stretch of land that safeway was prevented from expanding to... and people are surprised when the development has naysayers?

what is the developer thinking?

Deank wrote:so a group of people is proposing building on the same stretch of land that safeway was prevented from expanding to... and people are surprised when the development has naysayers?

what is the developer thinking?

Maybe there was some hope that the development mentality in the city is changing?

Why was Safeway opposed?

I don't get it...since when are 4 empty houses and a couple of elm trees preferable to a modern high density development that brings more people closer to downtown? WTF are some people thinking? Seriously, it's a couple old boarded up houses that apparently no one wants except theses nutbars. Why don't they buy them if they mean so much to them personally?

No wonder nothing get's accomplished in this city, we let a few quacks stall every major development opportuniy.

grumpy old man wrote:Why was Safeway opposed?

cant quite remember something about tearing those houses down I think//... but it went like this

safeway proposed... residents said..well how about this instead? safeway said NO it must be our way or we are leaving... residents said well we really dont want you to leave this plan that we are presenting is much better, leave if you must... safeway said... oh um.. yeah... that makes sense...

grumpy old man wrote:Why was Safeway opposed?

I thought it had something to do with Safeway's design not fitting into the neighborhood concept; whatever that means.

someday someone will be chosen to develop that land.

all them loveley homes are gonna lose all their winter sunshine.
If it was mine I would tell you screw off too. ..

I thought residents opposed the new Safeway because they had planned to cut down all the trees along River Ave.

????

Along "that stretch" of River maybe? That seems unlikely. Who knows?

tick wrote:someday someone will be chosen to develop that land.

all them loveley homes are gonna loose all their winter sunshine.
If it was mine I would tell you screw off too. ..

Now where did we hear that word before???

I don't get this city sommetimes. Why can't the residents just accept the new condo development as it would probably be in the best intersts of the community. They sound very selfish..

Wouldn't it cost a lot more if the developer is forced to work within the framework of the existing building instead of just knocking it down and starting from scratch?
Wouldn't the developer have to charge a lot more for the buildings in order to re-coup his costs?
Wouldn't this just drive up the cost of condominiums to the point where no-one is buying?

Isn't this how developers get to the point of saying they need taxpayer (I mean government) subsidies to make a profit?

Where have we seen this dance before ?

Outsider wrote:Wouldn't it cost a lot more if the developer is forced to work within the framework of the existing building instead of just knocking it down and starting from scratch?

Read the article - they are going to demolish 4 houses and some trees and erect a 12 story condo. I don't see how you could erect a 12 story condo working within the framework of the existing houses.

This is the quote that I don't really understand:

"I chose to live in Osborne Village because it's old and I love the trees," Lehn said. "I moved from a 100-year-old house on Gertrude Avenue eight years ago. I didn't want to leave the area."

Isn't that like saying I moved from Los Angeles to Honolulu because I wanted to be near the ocean and live somewhere it's warm?

Well old is nice but new is exciting and change is good for you .

St Norberter wrote:

Outsider wrote:Wouldn't it cost a lot more if the developer is forced to work within the framework of the existing building instead of just knocking it down and starting from scratch?

Read the article - they are going to demolish 4 houses and some trees and erect a 12 story condo. I don't see how you could erect a 12 story condo working within the framework of the existing houses.

I read the article. I was trying to make the point that when people try to hang onto the old they impede progress to the point that absolutely nothing gets done unless it is heavily taxpayer subsidized.
Then people wonder why their taxes are so high.
And then the homes that are available cost so much because there is a shortage and they wonder why everything is so expensive.

grumpyrom wrote:I don't get it...since when are 4 empty houses and a couple of elm trees preferable to a modern high density development that brings more people closer to downtown?

Ahhh...the houses are not empty. They are rented out and very much lived in.

But that is an honest mistake as a couple of them look pretty beat up....they're a couple of stucco 60's boxes and two beater mansions that are now well past their due date,

However, I live close by (heh...100 year old house on Gertrude btw) and have a concern about the traffic this will bring.

Presently, the lights at Roslyn and Osborne don't seem to be able to accomodate the traffic and with the addition of another 100 cars, it may become intolerable.

We must remember that a short time ago, this area was the most densely populated area in Canada.

However, I reckon that a lot of these new residents would be seniors and people that are moving to the area because everything is within walking distance, so the vehicular traffic may not really be a problem.
It's very ironic that this lady moved from Gertrude to a condo in the area and now she doesn't want anymore condos in the area.

The lady had a great big beautiful duplex on Gertrude, and she did not want the maintenance problem, as she lived alone. How do I know? She shared space with my wife 42 years ago, and is a family friend!
I love the too much traffic , too much noise, which is not a real complaint in any sane person's view.
These are negative nanny complaints. A more positive approach would be, "we want to kick out 4 families who are renting, and put in 74 families in this great area"!

This area has character, but hardly in the sense of "homes" (at lease not significantly anyways), as there are plenty of mid to highrise residential units in the area. I think that the character argument in this circumstance is bull.

So according to the NIMBY's, developments like this aren't welcome in the downtown (100 Main St), the suburbs (Whellams), or Osborn village (Roslyn). So then where the frick do you put them????????????? On top of your head???????? Any excuse to squash a large development.

No, chances are you put them in cities like Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton, Toronto that welcome these developments with open arms; sigh.

The 'Planning Dept.' says this parcel of land will support 80 units, and the developer wants only 74.

Other than the 12 or so 'families' living there, and the women themselves, I wonder how much oppostion there really is...concerns perhaps, but actual "oppostion"?

These are small developments compared to Whellams , and in a area already predominately Apt blocks . Not houses although there are some .

NIMBY sure comes up with boring complaints- If you eliminate traffic and noise, people have nothing left.
One innovative noise complaint regarding IKEA is the guy whose house in Tuxedo is on the CN rail line side, and his innovative complaint is the noise from the trains will bounce off the buildings proposed there in 10-20 years . Easy solution would be to make them build stealth buildings or point out the fact that the noise will bounce back to the train at 700 feet per second, the speed of sound.
Who says our City Councillors have an easy time when they have to listen to this dribble?

the best way to reduce noise is to have lots and lots of snow.

...but then the carolling starts , and then those damn sleigh bells....

sleigh bells ring, are you listening