We have a very under-utilized Toronto Island Park and Tommy Thompson Park nearby to accomplish what you're asking
The amount of parkland in Toronto, on a per person basis, has declined significantly over the last 20 years.
We've added upwards of 40% more people, and less than 10% more parkland.
It's entirely fair to suggest we're not going to be able to reach a goal of 40% or that there may be better locations to do so, (ie. serving areas with less parkland and more people, and weighting that against the potential for economic returns and affordable housing here); but the idea that the amount of parkland in general, is sufficient is not reasonable.
Nor are the two parks you cited reasonable in terms of serving this area, as access to the Islands requires a paid ferry ride and a considerable trip time from this area, while the Spit is a better choice, it's also a narrow, kilometers long space, which does serve nature well, but is not all that easily accessed as a local service. (ie. you can't drive or take some form of transportation to the interior, or far-end of the spit, and asking people to walk up to 5km to access a space is not that reasonable.
. It would be a 'waste of infrastructure' if we built all this and let it naturalize. Instead, think of the taxbase that will be built in the coming decades. It will pay for itself many times over.
It absolutely will not.
I take no issue w/advocating development here; there are certainly reasons to do so, from housing to economic development.
But the cost of delivering the flood proofing, new river, new Lake Shore, new bridges, new schools, new community centres and new transit will exceed 10B.
The resulting development will also have operating costs, waste pick-up, lawn mowing, flower beds, streetlights, pot holes, snow removal, community centres, Fire/EMS etc etc.
The City will not clear a net benefit for the project for decades to come on a purely net new taxes above and beyond cost of services delivered basis.
That doesn't mean we shouldn't do development here, but that it will return net proceeds in the short or medium term is not the correct argument.
As someone who missed out on buying a home when I could afford one, I quite frankly find your suggestions laughable. I wish there were 25,000 units here, not just 9,000.
That is really too much, and then a bit. 25,000 units here would be a slum. It would literally be the densest community on earth.
Ferocious winds, no sunlight, elevator waits of up to 45 minutes at peak times, kids needs to be bussed to schools an hour away...........
To argue for poverty, pollution unending traffic gridlock, transit jammed to the gills is not at all reasonable.
Its fair to advocate for development, its not fair to argue for a completely untenable level of development that would create nothing but crises.