I disagree on multiple grounds: first, that context is something we should care about, next, that context with regards to SFH is something we should prioritize, and third, that this is the developer’s problem.
First, it’s not clear that context is something that should be protected or maintained - especially across the city. And, even then: why do we focus on physical context vs demographic context? These communities have changed over time, risen and dropped in population and the makeup of the people living there. Yet, why is physical context so crucial to fossilize?
You know that you and I share a desire for urban intensification and progressive planning, but I must say, I think you're being a bit extreme here; both in your description of
@Amare 's thoughts and in respect of the absolute statement you're advocating.
I'll let Amare speak for himself; but I don't think he suggested fossilizing anything. There was no suggestion that the developer building SFH, Townhomes, lowrises or even fill the site w/midrise; only that it should likely transition downwards from south to north to reflect the lower rise form present on the north side of Queensway. There was no suggestion that the transition has to be down to 2s, 3s etc, just that a 40s streetwall on Queensway might not be the most sensible or reasonable plan, and I don't think that seems quite like the apostasy of progressive planning.
*****
It's absolutely true that neighbourhoods change, and that this one should, and will, over time.
Yes, the smaller homes, especially those close to Queensway will likely rebuilt over time as lowrise rental/condo, perhaps even midrise; but the idea of wholesale hirise towers seems unlikely.
That's not merely a function of taste or fossilized planning, it's local infrastructure capacity (roads, transit, schools, sewers, watermains) Note that side streets, typically, have smaller sewers and water mains that larger arterial roads, and it's not an immaterial expense to rebuild them all. Which is to say, change will come, but not all at once, and probably not to the extent seen to the south; it seems reasonable to me to consider both what is currently present, and what's likely to be over the next two decades and not be indifferent to that.
Next, adapting to neighbourhood context here simply enshrines the broken state of planning in Toronto, in that we simply enshrine the primacy of SFH in Toronto zoning. We should be taking every step to move away from that. And yes, I’m ok if that means building towers next to them.
I'm not sure anyone advocated newly enshrining anything. In fact, I think it's fair to say everyone expects intensification and upward movement in these communities over time. The question is merely how much, in this particular spot.
Finally, this entire situation is occurring because of the city’s insistence on forcing all development into certain areas and along avenues. It’s in the city’s power to change the mechanics of which buildings are built next to each other: make it easier to build missing-middle and midrise in yellowbelt zones and there’ll be less of this vast disparity in ‘context’.
Yes.....to a point...........but it isn't that easy, see the infrastructure questions I raised above. Consider how far the interior of certain areas is from transit or the road grid; also consider that SFH will be retained in some areas; and that isn't evil, LOL It's part of a healthy mix of uses to meet the needs of a range of residents. We over-protect that designation now; and overly prescriptive within it, in certain respects; but I don't think it's desirable or affordable to assume we wipe out all yellow belt per se, in its entirety. Though, to be clear, I favour as-of-right permission for everything up to a 4-plex and for purpose-built rental within every yellowbelt area, in addition to more substantially upzoning, as-of-right, on all arterial roads.
