Friday’s headlines

3 comments

1. Today, Shawn Micallef has a column in the Star (‘The Condo Cliche). In his column he links to Alex Bozikovic’s ‘No Mean City’ post (highlighted in Spacing), and refers to community resistance to the 109OZ proposal on Ossington as follows: “In the spring, a planned six-storey midrise condo near the bottom of Ossington caught the ire of a small group of local residents who said that the new residents, who hadn’t yet materialized, would be frat-boy partiers, disrupting the neighbourhood.”

   Where to begin with the ways in which this summary misrepresents our situation? Shawn, why have you betrayed us?

   We are fans of your work celebrating the distinctive and eclectic parts of our city—parts like the Ossington Strip. And we are, planners and architects tell us, very well-informed about the urban planning issues in this City. We have spent a lot of time and energy, both in comment threads, on the Ossington Community Association site, in public, in the media, etc., in setting out the OP-based principles and detailed facts underlying our position. Again, see the PowerPoint presentation at http://www.scribd.com/doc/99265335/109oz-in-Context for discussion of OP-based considerations and identification of clear negative impacts the proposal would have on our various communities—impacts supported by 3D renderings of 109OZ, produced using Google Sketchup on the basis of architectural drawings and city property data maps:

   http://www.scribd.com/doc/109555668/Views

   Shawn, why didn’t you mention any of these important considerations in your column? Why did you rather imply that our opposition is based primarily on concerns that the building occupants would be “frat-boy” partiers, a view that is no part of the OCA position, and which was rather expressed by one OCA member, not speaking in an official capacity, in two places: first, in the comment thread to Bozikovic’s post; second, in his personal comments at the mike of the June 25 OCA 109OZ meeting. Is it fair to represent our position this way? Does it help advance understanding of and debate about the issue of midrise condos in established lowrise areas?

   Shawn, you also said that it was “a small group of local residents” that were opposed to 109OZ. But at the June 25 meeting, there were (video evidence establishes) around 400 residents, who (as the video also establishes) were almost unanimously vociferously opposed to the proposal. Is it fair to call this “a small group”?

   Since then, hundreds more have participated in the Visioning Process initiated by Mike Layton, which resulted in a set of Principles that conform in pretty much every detail—including that new development on Ossington should be low-rise—with the position endorsed by the OCA, and which were endorsed as needing to be applied to the 109OZ proposal in last Tuesday’s final public Visioning Process meeting, in what Layton called the “consensus that has emerged”.

   There are also the 2100 signatories to the Keep Ossington Lowrise petition, available here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/keep-ossington-lowrise/

   (Please sign, y’all—this is far from over, and every name counts.)

   And Shawn, please think about revisiting your position—we could use your help in getting a better building into that spot. And if you don’t want to help us, we ask that you please don’t hurt us by misrepresenting the views of the OCA or of the community at large.

2. Ah yes, the worst kind of NIMBY rears its head again. The OCA is out to lunch on 109OZ. 

   It’s a nice building and all the opposition seems to be some kind of passive aggressive swipe at Change that doesn’t fit their own view of a neighborhood. The strip was changed by the indie shops and bars (and I think those shops are a positive) and the addition of OZ — a nicely designed building that will not ruin a thing on this strip —  instead of a car wash is a fine addition.

   All of J Wilson’s complaints and the immature and naive power point that is linked her comment demonstrate just how out of touch she and the OCA are when it comes to decent urbanism. 

3. e-bike, I have mixed feeling about it. On one hand, it extends a great mode of transportation to a segment of population who would not be using it otherwise; on the other hand it does create some hazard to other cyclists when sharing the same facility, mostly because they are heavier, and they are faster, and anecdotally their braking capacity is insufficient for their momentum (some also complain that they are too silent, but bicycles are very silent too so I won’t count that one). By simple physics, in a collision, a e-bike with a rider probably weigh 2 times than a bicycle with a rider, travelling at twice the speed, packs 8 times the energy.

   I think there should be a further categorization of e-bikes, with much stricter limitation put on e-bikes that can access dedicated cycling infrastructures. Say it should weight under 30kg and travel no faster than 25km/h (I know some cyclists are faster than that, but hey, if you need help to get you bike moving, should not you be happy enough to travel at a speed faster than most cyclists already? Do you really have to outdo the fitest and fastest out there?) The rest should be treated at motorized vehicle and banned from bike lanes and trails.