Quote:
Originally Posted by ScreamingViking
I can see Innsertnamehere's point.
While I want to see many more Augusta-style developments on empty lots or underutilized properties all throughout the lower city (and parts of the upper!), if the city gets over quibbling and hardlining about a few extra floors above 30, there's opportunity to add many more units to the local housing market (and more residents downtown) via these towers without a major change in height policy or a massive effect on urban form. I'd want to see them do so in exchange for other public benefits or amenities though.
That said, the argument has a limit so long as the tall buildings policy remains. It can't turn into an ever expanding case: "Well, they got 4 extra floors... all we're asking for is 6"... "We think there is precedent for 8"... "They got 8, 10 isn't a whole lot more you know"... etc.
|
We'll see how it plays out. Perhaps small increases will be seen above the limit, but anything say above 5 floors will require a zoning amendment. Time will tell. They can absolutely use precedent though, and if the city says they can't, they can go to LPAT and argue their case with much better lawyers than the city will hire.
I just think it's unfair to the countless hours spent by staff and community members to help build a comprehensive secondary plan that allowed for density, but also respected the community. I disagree with some elements of the secondary plan, and so think there are some spots that can handle more density than the secondary plan set out, especially since the suburban areas are unwilling to budge on single family zoning, however it's incredibly disrespectful to basically say "eh whatever" to the people who worked on this plan. The point Liuna made about not being profitable on this site without an extra 4 floors shows that this was doing well to curb speculation. If Liuna couldn't make money by building a 30 storey building they would have to sell it at a price where someone would make money. Now that there is apparently free reign of height limits, prices will begin to trend upward as developers see dollar signs.
The other issue is Farr's inability to properly negotiate. Farr has tried to lay the red carpet for many a developer only to have nothing come of it. Dud after dud shows bad decision making at city hall, and by simply letting developers run the city, you run into issues that Toronto had years past where developers run the town, and still do to a degree. Even if you support taller buildings, this is not the right way to get your way, unless you are truly a tall tower zealot, because sound policy is the way to improve the housing market, not city staff and the community getting "owned". If the secondary plan truly has terrible policy, we should be working to improve that policy, which, yes, can include removing red tape.
I'm not sure some here are that interested in removing red tape, as they are in seeing tall buildings, otherwise they would support removal of parking minimums, which on this forum has luke warm reception. Mandatory parking spots which can cost 15% - 25% the cost of a new unit, and reduces the total number of units is a massive problem, and would make buildings far more profitable to build at lower heights.
Prev
Linear Mode
