I've got a question for those who are claiming to be pro-height yet are arguing that this area is not suited for highrise development. Just where exactly do you think highrises are appropriate in this city?
The CBD is largely surrounded by mid-rise neighbourhoods, as is typically the case in any city. If we're not going to build highrises adjacent to the central core, where else could they possibly go that wouldn't similarly violate neighbourhood scale?
Yonge and Bloor is largely hemmed in by the university and Yorkville, so we're not going to see any significant growth there. There are a handful of lots along Bay St. that are being filled in as we speak. The core is already bound by Nathan Phillips Square on the north, and various low-rise neighbourhoods to the east. There are only a small handful of lots remaining to the south. Going west is the only thing that makes sense, especially considering that the area is already speckled with very tall developments.
If this city is going to keep growing, we need to go up, not out. Give it a couple of decades and we'll pretty much be out of empty lots downtown. Then we'll be wishing we had built higher in the first place instead of having to knock things down.
I should first state that I'm not anti-height for this location. Honestly, this address is two or three buildings away from a highrise in all directions (RBC to the south, boutique to the north, Sunlife towers to the east and Festival tower to the west) so it seems ideally situated to be among a cluster of tall buildings.
Having said that, your arguments/points, well valid, are fairly warn out. It is generally understood that we have to "grow up, not out" and that the CBD is largely surrounded by mid-to-high rise towers. I would also reject that the core is bound by Nathan Phillip Square to the north, as there are plenty of taller or equal-to the height of this proposal north of Dundas. You reference other districts, like Bloor/Yonge and claim that the growth there is limited. It is not. There are plenty of lots and areas for larger scale development in this specific growth area and many others.
The City of Toronto's official plan designates growth areas. It also designates neighbourhoods that should be left in tact. It is a fine balance and one that cannot, and should not, be watered down to the taller, better vs the historical, hysterical.
With that out of my system, I stand by the need to adequately and respectfully integrate new, high-rise developments into low-rise avenues, regardless of location. To me, taller isn't better if the end product does not fit in to the fabric of the existing built form. My hang-up with this proposal is just that, will the development enhance or greet the street with respect and dignity? King Street between University and Spadina is a legendary stretch. It should not be diluted. I admit that introducing a 40-storey tower in this small lot will risk overwhelming the nature of the street and street wall. Every effort to eliminate that risk should be taken.