Comment 89586

By Rational Optimist (anonymous) | Posted June 18, 2013 at 14:37:56

"The planner who was present even went so far as to imply that because a four-storey building had been in the zoning for that property since 1997, it was a case of caveat emptor for those who had moved onto the street since then."

That's a really unfortunate thing to say, in my opinion. It seems like there has been little effort to mitigate the effects that this building will have on its neighbours. The development has not yet begun, and the developer (and one day manager…) is already proving not to be a good neighbour.

Compare this to the 107 Locke St proposal, a very appealing mixed use development which would be a great addition to Locke South, adding both residents and more commercial space. It won't be putting a big wall within eight feet of anyone's property, but is stalled because of people's increased concerns about the traffic it might cause.

427 Aberdeen I think will prove a nice addition to that important intersection. I don't want to discount anyone's concerns about aesthetics, but visible gas meters and insufficient light mitigation may pale to eventual concerns with 220 Dundurn. What does anyone expect to happen when the City gives the message to this convicted sex offender that it is completely acceptable to ignore legitimate complaints of adjacent neighbours?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools