03-12-2018, 01:45 PM
I think the general objection is how dramatically the building height will differ from the current height limits in the area. If the purpose of the height limit is to be able to negotiate a better deal from a developer, but ultimately the height will be far out of scale with what was in the district plan, why bother? The City should stand its ground and say, "Nope, after much discussion, debate, and planning, this is what we want King St to look like." A City plan shouldn't merely be a guideline that is quickly discarded because someone wants to do something that is different. Would it be any different than someone saying, "I know that you really would like more employment land, but my market data says that building a residential building here is a better idea so please allow me to use this employment land for a different purpose"?
Sometimes is feels like we need to get past the "build it now, build it tall" rush that saw King St from University to Columbia turned into an unfortunate urban setting, to the "build it soon, build it nicely" which is what is happening elsewhere in Northdale. While I initially was opposed to something like the 42, once the dust has settled, is fits nicely into the neighbourhood without dominating the skyline or neighbourhood.
Sometimes is feels like we need to get past the "build it now, build it tall" rush that saw King St from University to Columbia turned into an unfortunate urban setting, to the "build it soon, build it nicely" which is what is happening elsewhere in Northdale. While I initially was opposed to something like the 42, once the dust has settled, is fits nicely into the neighbourhood without dominating the skyline or neighbourhood.