What's on the site today is 3 storeys, but its not a 'limit' because its not limited to 3 storeys under the as of right zoning - you could build something up to 18 metres high without any need for an amendment. What I said was in response to you saying it was 'regulated' at 3 floors, which just isn't true.
I recognize that they're across the street from one another and that yes that makes them on different blocks. I don't think a map is necessary, but thank you for the offer.
Flatiron is 11 storeys, you can find the by-law on the city website which, again iirc, permits a building of 35-40 metres (most by-laws don't directly limit floors, just the absolute height of the building but you can look at the staff reports to get a sense of how many floors that amounts to).
I haven't ignored you on this point. I just think we might be talking about different issues. Your saying that Work Lofts (and I assume Flatiron) should never have been approved in the first place. I respectfully disagree, but thats not the point. The point is, given that they've already been approved (and that this can't be undone), what is the fair way to treat landowners who make an application to the City in a similar situation? Its a question of fairness going forward, not if what was done in the past was fair or appropriate.
I completely agree that this is not the Port Lands or City Place and that there is a need to be sensitive to nearby residential neighbourhoods. There are City policies that support this notion as well.
That said, in my opinion, some amount of intensification is appropriate and ultimately good for the area. That's why I think anything beyond a mid-rise building (say 15-16 storeys max) would be too tall for the site since beyond this point it's you'd likely run into a number of built form issues such as shadowing of the nearby houses, sidewalks etc. However, I recognize and respect that you have a different opinion on what's appropriate.
