Such a small lot for such a mammoth project next to 2 storey townhomes ....
While you are welcome to whatever preferences you have, describing this as a 'small lot' isn't very accurate. Is it the size of the Christie site? No. But taller buildings have gone up on smaller footprints plenty of times.
casting shadows, affecting winds, traffic congestion and other infrastructure demands.
Virtually all development will do these things. It is the responsibility of Planning and the developer to show some effort to mitigate these impacts within the context of otherwise permissible development.
Why not stacked townhomes .... not enough profit?? The Sunbeam and Minto sites on ample Etibicoke land built townhomes not high rises.
Toronto land prices have been rising substantially, the population growing, and Provincial planning mandates changing to create conditions under which the land value of this site had hirise development factored into it. In other words, you couldn't develop such low density and make any profit.
High rises are now running over suburban- homes in Mimico.
This will continue as the City grows, maybe even speed up. If you want that to change, you're going to have to seek changes in Federal policy (immigration, foreign students, TFWs) that allow for and promote said growth.
If people are showing up, they need somewhere to live. There are only 2 basic choices, more sprawl, with people still clogging up the QEW, but several other highways as well as they commute in from north-west of Milton or Brantford....... or the City becomes more vertical.
Personally, I'd be fine w/curtailing the rate of growth, but that can't be laid at the feet of developers who clearly have no end of buyers for their units (or renters); nor at the feet of City Planning who are mandated to find room for hundreds of thousands (or possibly 1,000,000+ more residents within the City) .
Traffic volume off QEW is overwhelming at times (onto Park Lawn and future Legion Rd extension) all cascading onto Lake Shore.
There is a traffic/roads plan for the area which has been discussed extensively here at UT. There will also be a new GO Station at Park Lawn Road. Whether these are sufficient for current and future demand is a matter of some conjecture.
What are "Shadow Studies" for? ... fir City to ignore its affects on adjacent homes?
No, they are not. But some additional shadow is permissible under the guidelines. There are limits on the amount of net new shadow, with parks and school yards receiving top priority for ongoing daylight. But Shadow studies do not mean no net new shadow on anyone, ever.
South Etobicoke residents and current HBS high rises have paid ample tax to pay for needed infrastructure without City relying on Development Charges, Section 37 and other coffers such as high density gentrification tax source.
Enough!
Actually, not true. Toronto's rate of taxes is among the very lowest in all of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It is far too low to support the City's ongoing needs as is reflected by inadequate transit, overfull homeless shelters, insufficient litter pick-up, and a host of other problems of which we are all aware.
If you want to suggest doing away with development charges as a revenue source, just to hold the status-quo on service level, you're looking at a massive double-digit tax hike.
*****
On that note, Welcome to UT!
