11-19-2014, 02:58 PM
Keep in mind Owen, I am not saying I am 100% one way or the other. But as an example, looking at your drawings, if someone assembled all the properties on only one side of Arthur place, say the East side, and built something, then only the Momentum-adjacent properties could be built on, and with a 25m setback, for anything to get built on them, all the setback would need to be on the Momentum properties. The issue here is that when you assemble properties, you can always have partially-assembled adjacent properties, or adjacent non-assembled properties. While we don't want to forever handicap development-adjacent properties' abilities to be assembled, we also don't want to always let development be held hostage to adjacent buildings, forever impeding all but the largest of assembled projects.
You need only look at the orphaned properties on King between University and Columbia, owners of small lots which cannot accommodate anything large given towers on both sides, but which could have otherwise singlehandedly destroyed multiple towers, or drastically held them back, just on the hope that someday, maybe, something. Or the St. Sophia Ukranian church. I'm not saying I am happy or unhappy in either of those cases, but in each one, there is a great risk in always holding back development because of "what if?"
You need only look at the orphaned properties on King between University and Columbia, owners of small lots which cannot accommodate anything large given towers on both sides, but which could have otherwise singlehandedly destroyed multiple towers, or drastically held them back, just on the hope that someday, maybe, something. Or the St. Sophia Ukranian church. I'm not saying I am happy or unhappy in either of those cases, but in each one, there is a great risk in always holding back development because of "what if?"