This a weird plan. Tall towers surrounding an interior of one or two storey retail buildings. Someone mentioned medium rises. I think redistributing the density with blocks of mixed use medium rises would have a better feel.
I get that it’s “weird” in the sense of being very different scale than what is there previously - and midrises are a great design tool that can be cheaper and faster to build with benefits on the ground orientation, shadows etc. but tower/podium designs are fairly standard Canadian city templates, I’m sure it could work fine here, if thoughtfully implemented.
For this site I struggle with the NIMBY perspective, generally of course, but especially here. Who is actually impacted by any proposal, towers or not, on the site?
These are hardly being built in people’s backyards, with dozens or hundreds of metres from the nearest other property. I don’t see how anything will pass an impact test to truly be impacted by whatever is built here.
From design and build-out pacing there’s lots to debate - I’d prefer lower development, with faster build out times so we don’t see another site struggle to complete for a few decades at the whims of when or if tower construction is profitable. I would love to see a strong, truly attractive park-to-BRT pedestrian spine that evolves into an actual destination one-day. But that’s my opinion on site aesthetics, build out pacing and a rudimentary understanding of development economics - I don’t actually get a say on that apart from enjoyable debates with you all on this forum.
I just don’t get how any opponents will justify they have been impacted by this. I’m sure all the regular NIMBY tropes will apply, just this one is so far removed from if they were proposing a tower directly beside a house in the community, for example.