Yes, that familiar Toronto planning argument: The development industry WANTS to build towers on ugly, forlorn, polluted corners of the city, because it would be inconvenient* for them to redevelop pleasant blocks that actually have things.
(*Not that we asked, and not we have made it legal for them to do so, of course.)
I want to be careful here, publicly.
I don't dox anyone, ever.
But you have friends in Toronto's development community.
Ask them whether they would prefer to buy a greenfield site {which surface parking generally is), with one owner, no complications, they don't need road closure permits because they can work entirely within their own site, there's no adjacent residential which means no noise complaints or at least minimal when they work well into the evening or on weekends.............oh and its 2 blocks from a prospective subway station, and 3 from a major highway interchange...................OR, they can go negotiate with 3, 4, 5 or more property owners, with the need to get each and every one of them on board, then demolish multiple buildings, then deal with rental replacement regulation, a higher risk of soil contamination, a near 100% chance they will need road closure permits that can run into the hundreds of thousands or worse, and then deal with noise complaints if they work on the weekend or past 7pm.
Do it. You know who to talk to..............they're smart people and they do it for a living.
Sure they'd prefer the hotter neighbourhood if all things were equal.
But they're not.
Did I mention that the suburban site comes at less than 1/2 the price, and that the urban site demands minimum rent of $3,500 per month for a 1 bdrm, where the suburban site can come in more than $500 cheaper?
You really put way too much on Toronto Planning. They are guilty of plenty of things over the years, most of which I have been a factor in them addressing, from parking minimums to the angular plane.
But they are not guilty of everything you seem to think, and you have no evidence to the contrary, because there isn't any.
As an aside I speak to developers here regularly and in my most recent surveys, early this year, I asked what they considered obstacles to smaller builds especially. I was told the bike storage requirements were onerous and under used.
The policies changed within six months. Identify a real problem, I will help if I can.
But tell me its Planning's fault that developers like easy to rezone sites that are greenfield and come at 50% off discounts near highways and proposed subways, and I'm going to tell you, you're wrong.
