While everyone piles on against the locals and dismisses them with the term NIMBY, I think they have a point. This is not a question of a little more density in a low density neighbourhood, this is a full doubling of the density of a dense neighbourhood. One would think that the place for analysis that only identifies black and white sides to the issue of densification would be the editorial pages and letters to the editor of the Toronto Sun. Here, we should be able to take a more nuanced approach to this, which frankly, is what the Planning Department will do.
I hope the residents achieve some reductions of the plans here: these proposals represent a fundamental transformation of this neighbourhood, and from amongst the proposals, the City is going to have to demand some greenspace be assembled amongst the intensification. There will be places required for dog runs, and some sunlight reaching the ground. High Park on its own—with its significant natural heritage areas—wouldn't be able to handle the day-to-day needs of twice the current dog-owing population in the area, for example. Where's the additional public school capacity in the area, for another?
Here's to renewal in the area, but only with all of the proposals studied together and the total effect considered, and reductions made where needed to address the current and future residents' needs.
42