This project brought up some very interesting issues last night that the EYCC, and the one which interested me most was about what "height" means. I am sure that these are old chestnuts to urban planners, but to an amateur observer like me, they are interesting...
1. From the city planners point of view, it is clear that the height guidance for avenues is measured from the avenue, and only the avenue - in this case Bloor. However, the residents who are closest to the site live on the other (N) side of the site from Bloor, down a steep gradient. When they count storeys, the ground floor on the 2500 and 2490 sites are actually 2 storeys above them to start with, so their perception of 10 and 13 floors is that much higher. That appears to be a non-issue for city planners who only count from the avenue. It is interesting as there is definitely a psychological aspect to urban planning, in addition to practical, aesthetic, monetary etc. etc. aspect. The city planner seemed very caught up with shadow studies, which are important, but had no thought for how oppressive built-form can be when it towers over an observer, even when the sun is perpendicular to the sight line.
2. The issue came up about high relative to what - do we judge "much higher than everything else" relative to what is currently in place, or the buildings that will be built in the future? Currently, most buildings in the area are 3 storeys with a couple of buildings up to 8 or maybe 10. (The exception is the tower near Old Mill subway station, which is not immediately adjacent to low-rise residential buildings.) The city planners, and developers, argument is that what counts is what will be there in 20 years - which of course no-one knows for sure as crystal balls are in short supply!
The kicker for me though was the City Planner chap says - 13 storeys won't seem high in 20 years as this avenue segment intensifies and the surrounding buildings increase in height too. He then went on to argue that these sites should be developed at the proposed height (i.e. over official plan guidelines) as there are only 4 other sites in the area that reasonably could be expected to be developed in the foreseeable future. I don't understand how his vision of the area in 20 years simultaneously has widespread increases in height to close up the gap between 3 and 13 storeys, while at the same time there are only 4 sites in addition to these two that will get developed at all. This logic seems not to be internally consistent...
This is my first time following a big project through planning in Toronto, so last night was fascinating to observe. (I know that a number of posters applauded Tridel for their community consultation process prior to bringing the proposal up. However, there is a student thesis to be done in a few years looking at how that consultation agenda was controlled by Tridel and how they used it in a very sophisticated way to try to influence EYCC, and presumably the stages that are still to come. Really fascinating to watch in an impeding car-crash sort of way....)
