02-10-2022, 01:39 PM
(This post was last modified: 02-10-2022, 01:42 PM by cherrypark.)
(02-10-2022, 10:55 AM)ac3r Wrote: I think 8 would suffice. But I hope residents realize that means fewer units and that could mean future developments in the area which they seem to complete object.
I'm not that big of a proponent of heavy density specifically when we have so much more we can do for low to mid-rise (which 660 is at the end of the day), but this is a cause and effect that gets forgotten some times, especially notable for those who feel more space is needed for green space or affordable housing. Same for the even bigger buildings downtown: more residents does mean more people accessing amenities, but one has to decide if the same number of people will still demand housing just spread over 2-4x the area in that case.
That said, I think the residents in the area see more development as a forgone conclusion and the fervour the last two nights has a lot of focus on this as a predicate for more towers and more "exceptions", even though this one is really not that much of a stretch of the zoning bylaws. Several instances that anything new and more than 2-4 stories was opposed came up when councillors pressed delegates to describe what "acceptable" looked like, usually showing their push for zoning compliance was not really the crux of their opposition.
Zac Zehr unsurprisingly was deft on his feet avoiding any suggestion of whether 8 stories was a viable business case. To me, the 3 added stories is a pretty trivial difference if it means they can "afford" (at least by means of their bottom line returns) to uphold plans for improving the street scape and things like adding the IHT access.