Right, and that is where I agree with you. The City could very much have adopted a quid pro quo where if tangible community benefits were provided, more density could be achieved. The bonus density would be tied directly to the value or size of the benefit in question. It's how we arrived with the current state of things - TIFF Lightbox with the Festival Tower. However, instead of seeing that as a model to be emulated, the City saw (and very much still sees) it as a mistake to be avoided. You can't put a community centre or a food hall on every site (eg. 357 King), but you certainly could have integrated a variety of uses on larger ones (87 Peter, Cinema Tower, etc.), in exchange for height bonuses and / or quicker approvals.
 
July 14, 2021.
067A1885.jpg
 
Not quite that far back, but I grew up walking past this building a lot in the 90s as my mother had a work studio in the area. Definitely agree that the building and surrounding area in its current and future form is more urban inviting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top